Journal Of European Industrial Training A Journal For HRD Specialists European Vocational Education And Training: Concepts, Experiences And Prospects , Volume 32 Number 2-3

jeit cover (i).qxd

01/04/2008

11:54

Page 1

ISSN 0309-0590

Volume 32 Number 2/3 2008

Journal of

European Industrial Training A journal for HRD specialists

European vocational education and training: concepts, experiences and prospects Guest Editors: Philipp Grollmann and Georg Spöttl

www.emeraldinsight.com

Journal of European Industrial Training

ISSN 0309-0590 Volume 32 Number 2/3 2008

European vocational education and training: concepts, experiences and prospects Guest Editors Philipp Grollmann and Georg Spo¨ttl

Access this journal online _______________________________

79

Editorial advisory board _________________________________

80

Guest editorial ____________________________________________

81

PART ONE: PARADIGMS AND PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN VET European vocational education and training: a prerequisite for mobility? Felix Rauner ___________________________________________________

85

Can performance-related learning outcomes have standards? Michaela Brockmann, Linda Clarke and Christopher Winch _____________

99

European qualifications framework: weighing some pros and cons out of a French perspective Annie Bouder __________________________________________________

114

Towards a European qualifications framework: some cautionary observations Michael Young _________________________________________________

Access this journal electronically The current and past volumes of this journal are available at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0590.htm You can also search more than 175 additional Emerald journals in Emerald Management Xtra (www.emeraldinsight.com) See page following contents for full details of what your access includes.

127

CONTENTS

CONTENTS continued

Professional competence as a benchmark for a European space of vocational education and training Philipp Grollmann _______________________________________________

138

PART TWO: EUROPEAN DESIGN PRINCIPLES PUT INTO PRACTICE Ways toward a European vocational education and training space: a ‘‘bottom-up’’ approach Jessica Blings and Georg Spo¨ttl ____________________________________

157

Putting Dreyfus into action: the European credit transfer system Jo¨rg Markowitsch, Karin Luomi-Messerer, Matthias Becker and Georg Spo¨ttl________________________________________________

171

VET in the European aircraft and space industry Rainer Bremer _________________________________________________

187

Evaluating progress of European vocational education and training systems: indicators in education Uwe Lauterbach ________________________________________________

201

Vocational education and training in Europe: an alternative to the European qualifications framework? ITB Working Group _____________________________________________

221

www.emeraldinsight.com/jeit.htm As a subscriber to this journal, you can benefit from instant, electronic access to this title via Emerald Management Xtra. Your access includes a variety of features that increase the value of your journal subscription.

Structured abstracts Emerald structured abstracts provide consistent, clear and informative summaries of the content of the articles, allowing faster evaluation of papers.

How to access this journal electronically

Additional complimentary services available

To benefit from electronic access to this journal, please contact [email protected] A set of login details will then be provided to you. Should you wish to access via IP, please provide these details in your e-mail. Once registration is completed, your institution will have instant access to all articles through the journal’s Table of Contents page at www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0590.htm More information about the journal is also available at www.emeraldinsight.com/ jeit.htm

Your access includes a variety of features that add to the functionality and value of your journal subscription:

Our liberal institution-wide licence allows everyone within your institution to access your journal electronically, making your subscription more cost-effective. Our web site has been designed to provide you with a comprehensive, simple system that needs only minimum administration. Access is available via IP authentication or username and password. Emerald online training services Visit www.emeraldinsight.com/training and take an Emerald online tour to help you get the most from your subscription.

Key features of Emerald electronic journals Automatic permission to make up to 25 copies of individual articles This facility can be used for training purposes, course notes, seminars etc. This only applies to articles of which Emerald owns copyright. For further details visit www.emeraldinsight.com/ copyright Online publishing and archiving As well as current volumes of the journal, you can also gain access to past volumes on the internet via Emerald Management Xtra. You can browse or search these databases for relevant articles. Key readings This feature provides abstracts of related articles chosen by the journal editor, selected to provide readers with current awareness of interesting articles from other publications in the field. Non-article content Material in our journals such as product information, industry trends, company news, conferences, etc. is available online and can be accessed by users. Reference linking Direct links from the journal article references to abstracts of the most influential articles cited. Where possible, this link is to the full text of the article. E-mail an article Allows users to e-mail links to relevant and interesting articles to another computer for later use, reference or printing purposes.

Xtra resources and collections When you register your journal subscription online you will gain access to additional resources for Authors and Librarians, offering key information and support to subscribers. In addition, our dedicated Research, Teaching and Learning Zones provide specialist ‘‘How to guides’’, case studies and interviews and you can also access Emerald Collections, including book reviews, management interviews and key readings. E-mail alert services These services allow you to be kept up to date with the latest additions to the journal via e-mail, as soon as new material enters the database. Further information about the services available can be found at www.emeraldinsight.com/alerts Emerald Research Connections An online meeting place for the world-wide research community, offering an opportunity for researchers to present their own work and find others to participate in future projects, or simply share ideas. Register yourself or search our database of researchers at www.emeraldinsight.com/connections

Choice of access Electronic access to this journal is available via a number of channels. Our web site www.emeraldinsight.com is the recommended means of electronic access, as it provides fully searchable and value added access to the complete content of the journal. However, you can also access and search the article content of this journal through the following journal delivery services: EBSCOHost Electronic Journals Service ejournals.ebsco.com Informatics J-Gate www.j-gate.informindia.co.in Ingenta www.ingenta.com Minerva Electronic Online Services www.minerva.at OCLC FirstSearch www.oclc.org/firstsearch SilverLinker www.ovid.com SwetsWise www.swetswise.com

Emerald Customer Support For customer support and technical help contact: E-mail [email protected] Web www.emeraldinsight.com/customercharter Tel +44 (0) 1274 785278 Fax +44 (0) 1274 785201

JEIT 32,2/3

80

Journal of European Industrial Training Vol. 32 No. 2/3, 2008 p. 80 # Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0309-0590

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Professor Rona Beattie Glasgow Caledonian University, UK Professor Phillip B. Beaumont Department of Business and Management, University of Glasgow, UK Amanda Cahir-O’Donnell Managing Director, TIO Consulting Ltd, Ireland David Collings JE Cairnes School of Business and Public Policy, National University of Ireland, Ireland Maria Cseh Oakland University, USA Professor Donal Dineen University of Limerick, Ireland Catherine Edwards Zara Centre for Lifelong Learning, University of Warwick, UK Dr Stephen Gibb University of Strathclyde, UK Dr Jeff Gold Leeds Metropolitan University, UK Dr John Goodwin University of Leicester, UK Dr Jim Grieves Newcastle Business School, University of Northumbria, UK Associate Professor Timothy Hatcher North Carolina State University, Raleigh, USA Professor Frank Horwitz Faculty of Management, University of Capetown Business School, South Africa Professor Paul Iles Leeds Metropolitan University, UK Alma McCarthy National University of Galway, Ireland Dr Martin McCracken University of Ulster, UK Professor Jim McGoldrick Dundee Business School, University of Abertay, Dundee, UK Dr David McGuire Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh, UK Professor Sharon Mavin Northumbria University, Newcastle, UK Dr Michael Morley Department of Personnel and Employment Relations, University of Limerick, Ireland Professor Dr Martin Mulder Department of Social Sciences, Wageningen University, The Netherlands Dr Fredrick Muyia Nafukho Associate Professor & Chair, HRD Program, Texas A&M University, USA

Professor Wim Nijhof University of Twente, The Netherlands Dr Barry Nyhan University of Bremen, Germany David O’Donnell Intellectual Capital Research Institute of Ireland, Ireland Dr Rob F. Poell Department of Human Resource Studies, Tilburg University, The Netherlands Dr Christopher Rees University of Manchester, UK Dr Ian Roffe Centre for Enterprise, European & Extension Services, University of Wales, UK Professor Eugene Sadler-Smith School of Management, University of Surrey, UK Dr Sally Sambrook University of Wales, Bangor, UK Sue Shaw Manchester Metropolitan University, UK Professor Andy Smith Charles Sturt University, Australia Dr Paul Smith University of Teesside, Middlesbrough, UK Professor Jim Stewart Leeds Business School, UK Dr Adrian Thornhill University of Gloucestershire, UK Dr Massimo Tomassini ISFOL, Italy Dr Kiran Trehan Lancaster University, UK Dr Mireia Valverde Universitat Roviri I Virgili, Spain Professor John S. Walton London Metropolitan University, UK Sandra Watson Napier University, UK Dr John Wilson Department of Continuing Education, Oxford University, UK Professor Jonathan Winterton Toulouse Business School (ESC Toulouse), France Dr Roland Yeo College of Industrial Management, King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Professor Adrian Ziderman Department of Economics, Bar-Ilan University, Israel

Guest editorial The Copenhagen process: concepts, experiences and prospects On November 15, 2007 the European Council has adopted the European Qualifications Framework. This is an important step in the process that has started in 2002 when the European Vocational Education Policy was set in motion with the “Copenhagen Declaration” (European Commission, 2003). European VET policy has reached new dynamics and as compared too earlier VET policy phases there is a surprisingly high commitment through the member states and the different stakeholders. Since 2002 an intensive discussion on the major instruments – particularly EQF and ECVET – took place, which has – despite its adoption – not been completed yet. The member states are now challenged in putting in National Qualification Frameworks, an imperative resulting from the adoption of the EQF. More or less all representatives of the Vocational Education Research have set this subject on their agenda in the meantime. Besides few exceptions the different positions vary among affirmative and descriptive orientation. Only the implementation process can now show about the real potentials and pitfalls when implementing this concept in different European VET contexts. This special issue of the Journal of European Industrial Training is a critical contribution to the debate about the tools adopted by the European Union. At the same time, it also documents constructive aspects of the discussion around the increasing Europeanisation of VET and lifelong learning based on empirical experiences in national and European research and development projects. The different contributions illustrate the different risks and challenges but also the chances and prospects of the new commitment to European VET policy that can be observed. In this logic, the first volume of this double special issue provides a forum for conceptual and analytical contributions to the debate whereas the second volume directs its focus towards empirical experiences that have been gathered from projects within European VET co-operation. Concepts in European VET and prospects for their development The first volume starts out with a contribution by Felix Rauner. His paper a promotes two main messages: on the one hand criticism can be found as regards to the more technical aspects of the European Qualifications framework. On the other hand, and more importantly, the paper of Rauner addresses a fundamental issue: the stark contrast between the subsidiarity rule that is constitutional for European Co-operation in the field of VET and the increasingly expanding mandate of European policies in VET. The solution he derives is an “architecture” for European VET that workers’ and employees as well as business and industry can make use of in order to make the European labour market reality. At the same time he postulates a workers’ right to a solid vocational education in order to make them prepared for the European labour market. Whilst this contribution challenges the “external” validity of the EQF approach, the paper of Michaela Brockmann and colleagues argues that there is a need for a proper distinction between educational standards and learning outcomes. Hence, his criticism is rather looking at the internal consistency of the approach. Winch indicates the multiple

Guest editorial

81

Journal of European Industrial Training Vol. 32 No. 2/3, 2008 pp. 81-84 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0309-0590 DOI 10.1108/03090590810861631

JEIT 32,2/3

82

problems that are associated with applying a learning outcomes approach to a qualification meta-framework such as the European Qualification Framework or the emerging national qualification frameworks. There are substantial differences between learning outcomes and standards with large educational and political implications that lead Winch to propose a fundamental revision of the current EQF. Annie Bouder, in her analysis, gives empirical meaning to this critique through looking at the EQF from three different angles, the historical, an analytical and the French national one. Bouder’s contribution is particularly concerned with how the EQF can realise its desired goal to contribute to promoting the knowledge society. The main conclusions are, that there is obviously a political will to question the role and the structure of qualifications in view of an economy and a society of knowledge and that research has much to contribute as regards to looking at the problem from the various possible angles. The need for further research is also affirmed by the contributions of Michael Young and Philipp Grollmann. Young’s analysis of existing qualification frameworks and their development in South Africa and New Zealand shows that Qualifications Frameworks are resisted partly from inertia and conservatism and partly because important educational purposes are being defended. Experiences suggest that hopes associated with such Frameworks are often unrealistic. The lessons from existing NQFs, so Young, suggest incrementalism, building blocks, supporting policies, consensus and staying as close as possible to practice are important. For the European Union, Grollmann argues, some of the substantive research that is available on the subject of learning in work processes has not been taken sufficiently into account within the development of the EQF. At the same time he tracks how the concept of competence has been changed within the different proposals towards the EQF. In order to make European VET a direct contribution to the revised Lisbon agenda, a more concise shared vision with regard to the processes and structures and outcomes of vocational education might be needed, he concludes. Therefore, research and development activities in the European Union could be integrated towards an agenda that covers structures, conditions, processes and their effect on outcomes of learning for and in the world of work. Concepts, experiences and further research needs All the contributions in the first section are emphasising the important part that could be played by research in future VET policy in Europe. The second volume of this double special issue elaborates exactly on this topic, in showcasing research results that are immediately connected to European VET policy. Based on the developmental work and the experiences with the recycling sector, Blings and Spo¨ttl describe how the whole European VET policies could be turned into a bottom-up process that builds on sound methodologies of analysing work processes and the participative engagement of national and practice level actors and stakeholders. The following article by Markowitsch, Luomi-Messerer, Becker and Spo¨ttl describes how the still scant knowledge about processes of developing vocational expertise can be brought together with the aim of establishing a European Credit Transfer System for Vocational Education. The contribution draws from a project that carried out extensive work process analysis in the metal engineering sector.

The results presented by Rainer Bremer are based on a project that has been carried out in the European Aeronautics sector. A comparison is drawn between competence development in four different VET systems in France, Germany, Spain, and the UK. This serves as a finding for the evaluation of the EQF and the effects it could have on the sector of the European aircraft industry. In the three hypotheses Bremer is putting forward (convergence of skill requirements, divergence of the national VET systems and structural reference between requirements and the development of competence) he illustrates the complex relationship between individual competence development and the context of work organisation and training and challenges the linear logic of the EQF. Whilst the first three empirical contributions in this volume are extremely relevant to the instruments of the Copenhagen process and the connected instruments EQF and ECVET, the contribution of Uwe Lauterbach turns the readers’ attention towards another significant European educational policy process, i.e. the process “Education 2010”. Education 2010 takes up the notion of the open method of co-ordination that has been developed in European employment policy (Leney, 2004). The idea in using this model for education is that a number of core indicators, “benchmarks”, can be used for the goal setting of educational systems without intervening into national policy contexts. In this regard the quality of an education system or a comparative international assessment refers more and more to quantitative parameters, i.e. “educational indicators”. Lauterbach’s contribution introduces the concept of educational indicators and discusses the question “what can educational indicators achieve?” He concludes that the use of indicators needs to be complemented by the use of qualitative information in order to provide meaningful and valid accounts of how educational systems are developing. Finally, this sets the context for the embedding the results and methodologies of the former articles into an appropriate context. The last contribution in the second part of the special issue falls out of the categories mentioned above. It constitutes an input into the discussion on the EQF developed by a group of researchers from ITB. The fundamental difference to the EQF in its existing form is that it acknowledges the world of vocational education integrating work experience in its own right. This is based on the plausible assumption that the learning that takes place in settings of practice leads to fundamentally different results than learning that happens in more “instructionist” settings. This challenges the principle that can be found in the EQF that learning in different contexts could lead to the same learning outcomes and that those learning outcomes are just a function of individualised learning trajectories and processes. Risks and prospects of the Copenhagen process All the articles in this double special issue pinpoint the potential risks associated with the instruments of the Copenhagen process and gather conceptual remarks on the possible re-orientation of the process in the future. It seems to be of particular importance to highlight that in different European Vocational Education Traditions empirical experiences with the tools recommended by the EQF and ECVET are available. In the debate they have been barely taken into account so far. Apart from few exceptions (e.g. Drexel, 2005) – risks and prospects as well as the appliance of the proposed tools have not been kept in perspective so far. The low consideration of results of genuine European Vocational Education Research appears to be another gap in the context of the EQF and the consultation phase. In various programmes of VET

Guest editorial

83

JEIT 32,2/3

84

research and development a number of projects were carried out and findings were acquired in recent years. The Copenhagen-Process provides a new orientation in European cooperation in VET and gives an opportunity to adjust programmes and projects targeted as well as to sharpen the profile of the activities (Heß and Tutschner, 2003). The further developments should emerge through a dialogue between research, practice and policy on tasks of VET in Europe. We hope that we can make a contribution to this dialogue by providing a directly relevant composition of findings and insights into this topic. Eventually, based on such work, alternatives can be discussed and evaluated with a look at the general aims and goals of the European Union, such as incorporated within the Lisbon Strategy, and a VET policy that is acknowledging the specific characteristics of learning for and in work processes. For us that includes the adherence to the principle of occupations as formal principle for content and forms of Vocational Education as well as for the corporatist definition of VET development (see the contribution of ITB-Working Group). We also consider this double special issue as a contribution to the further development of a deliberative (Habermas, 1992) European Vocational Education Policy, where arguments and interests can be exchanged and revealed in a rational manner and contribute to the public and political process of formation of opinions and decisions. Philipp Grollmann and Georg Spo¨ttl Guest Editors References Drexel, I. (2005), “Die Alternative zum Konzept des Berufs: Das Kompetenzkonzept - Intentionen und Folgeprobleme am Beispiel Frankreichs”, in Jakob, M. and Kupka, P. (Eds), Perspektiven des Berufskonzepts – die Bedeutung des Berufs fu¨r Ausbildung, Erwerbsta¨tigkeit und Arbeitsmarkt, Vol. 297, IAB, Nu¨rnberg, pp. 39-53. European Commission (2003), Enhanced Cooperation in Vocational Education and Training. Stocktaking Report of the Copenhagen Coordination Group, Brussels, October 2003. Habermas, J. (1992), Faktizita¨t und Geltung: Beitra¨ge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats, 2. Aufl edn, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main. Heß, E. and Tutschner, H. (2003), “Experiment und Gestaltung. U¨ber das Wirkungspotential des Programmes LEONARDO DA VINCI”, Ko¨lner Zeitschrift fu¨r “Wirtschaft und Pa¨dagogik”, Vol. 18 No. 34, pp. 135-50. Leney, T. (2004), “Reflections on the five priority benchmarks”, in Standaert, R. (Ed.), Becoming the Best. Educational Ambitions for Europe. CIDREE Yearbook, Vol. 3, CIDREE, Enschede. Corresponding author Philipp Grollmann can be contacted at: grollmann@uni_bremen.de

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0590.htm

PART ONE: PARADIGMS AND PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN VET

European vocational education and training: a prerequisite for mobility?

European VET

85

Felix Rauner Institute of Technology & Education, Bremen University, Bremen, Germany Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that the internationalisation of nearly all spheres of society and the process of European integration will be leading to the development of a European vocational education and training (VET) architecture. Design/methodology/approach – The analysis of the “Copenhagen process” is based on the EU documents on the realisation of a European Qualifications Framework and a credit transfer system. Findings – The result of the study shows that the strategy adopted by the European Union for the establishment of a European area of vocational education is confronted with a dilemma. The European Qualifications Framework is highly abstract since any reference to real educational programmes and qualifications and any concrete provision for the transition and for the transf erability between educational levels and sectors (vocational and higher education, initial and continuing training) was avoided in order to adhere to the anti-harmonisation clause. The result is an abstract, hierachically structured one-dimensional qualifications framework that lacks any reference to existing VET systems and that contradicts all scientific insights from VET research and knowledge research. Practical implications – The implications for VET policy are far-reaching. A European area of vocational education can be established only on the basis of European open core occupations and an open VET architecture, which ensures that vocational education becomes an integral part of national educational systems. The qualification of employees for the intermediary sector can be realised only as a European project. Originality/value – There are only a few contributions available that undertake a conceptual analysis and critique of the European Qualifications Framework. Keywords Vocational training, Europe, Qualifications, European legislation Paper type Conceptual paper

Introduction Following the declaration of the European Parliament in Lisbon in 2000, the goals for European development were pushed to the forefront: according to this declaration, Europe should, by the year 2010, develop into a dynamic and competitive, knowledge-based market in the world. At the same time a high degree of social cohesion is also highly sought after. This implies the integration of innovation, occupational, and (vocational) education politics. For education and training the following agreement from Barcelona was The author would like to thank Philipp Grollmann for his various suggestions and input in writing this article.

Journal of European Industrial Training Vol. 32 No. 2/3, 2008 pp. 85-98 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0309-0590 DOI 10.1108/03090590810861640

JEIT 32,2/3

86

added: “education and training systems in Europe should become a reference point for quality throughout the world by 2010”. The ministers responsible for vocational training and the European Commission agreed, in the Copenhagen Declaration of 2002, on how this goal should be implemented. Vocational training was thus defined as a connection between initial vocational training and further education within a framework of life-long learning. The successes which had been achieved during the development of a genuine European labour market and a knowledge-based economy, the fight against social inequality as well as the realization of an integrated and highly qualified vocational structure are considered the standards for a successful politics of vocational training. The decisions of the European Parliament on the construction of a “space” for European higher education (the Bologna Process) and for its quick implementation are, nowadays, considered to be positive examples, and are also seen as the first step towards expansion of the educational area of higher education into education in general. The processes of change set in motion by the Bologna Agreement have activated a dynamism within the German higher education landscape which eclipses all the last decade’s attempts to reform higher education. Without a discussion on reform that includes higher education, the classical university, with its course of study ending in a degree, developed at the very latest in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, will be abolished within a few years. Under the pressure of the setting of time standards through academic politics and administration the universities are occupied with the operationalization of the structuring of new Bachelor’s and Master’s Degree programs and the associated modulization of higher education curricula. The sheer shortage of time allows no room for a self-determined academia to discuss the sense of the situation. Success is measured by the speed of implementation of the political and academic guidelines derived from the Bologna decisions, and the degree of their progressive establishment. Critical annotation to this process, which has come from the circles of higher education didacts, and argues that the new higher education with its offers of polyvalent modules is misleading students, through the collection of credit points, to give up their search for understanding or expertise-based studies, or any connection of understanding and social engagement, effects at the most a mere footnote to the Bologna Process. From this example of the establishment of a European “space” for higher education, four lessons can be drawn for the subsequent project of creating “European Vocational Training”: (1) The decisions of the European Parliament on innovation, economic, labor market, and occupational politics have wide-reaching consequences for the development of European educational structures. (2) The veto on harmonization (subsidiarity principle) for the educational system, which is anchored in European Union law and which seeks a kind of “cultural dignity” for the nation-state, has unfolded in competition with other, more highly-valued legal norms, such as the freedom of movement of workers and the creation of a “real” European labour market, which, in fact, has only very limited effects. (3) The experiences of the usual speed of reform within the German educational system (the amendments to the vocational training law in 1969 have been

debated and discussed since the middle of the 1970s) obstruct the view towards a new pace, in which “reforms” on the European level are being set out in terms of years and not decades. (4) The occurrence, which is unthinkable in the world of German vocational education and training, that the Copenhagen Process provides structures for European vocational education and where, within the steps of implementation, only the question of speed of implementation is still pushed into reachable proximity. (the evaluation project and the report “Achieving the Lisbon Goals: The Contribution of VET” Tender No. EAC/84/03)[1] The strikingly small echo that the Copenhagen Process’ creation of a European space for vocational education with an open architecture has, up until now, triggered in the professional public, certainly has multiple causes about which only mere speculation is possible. Initially, the parallels with the realm of higher education are conspicuous: the relative speechlessness of those affected. Here, as there, a reform project of great or greater range is reduced to the dimension of its administrative operationalization. The widespread resignation of those responsible for a functioning vocational educational system, which is related to the problem that all attempts, up until now, to stop the erosion process of the dual system for vocational education, have not had any lasting reach, may be a reason for this exhibition of speechlessness. Perhaps, in a clearly stated bypass, the Copenhagen Process has increased the chances for modernization of vocational training in Germany, if it must occur through a systemic change, in any direction whatsoever. The postponement of responsibility which accompanies it on the European level promises relief. The economic and social meaning which the realization of a European space for vocational training and thus also the European vocational training system after the Copenhagen statement has, results in two-thirds of the employed being assigned to the mid-skilled level (skilled workers, technicians) (Figure 1). The qualification of skilled labor below the higher educational level is deemed to be a key question for every modern economy as well as a central factor for the realization of socially stable and democratic structures. 1. The instruments of the Copenhagen process Based on the preliminary work of the European social partners and the Commission, three key activities have been constructed: (1) Development of an instrument for the establishment of transparency for qualifications and competence. (among others the “Europass”). (2) Definitions of the criteria for the quality of vocational education offers and programs. (3) Implementation of a system for adaptaion and transmission of educational activities (ECVET, following the example of the European Credit Transfer System – ECTS – established within higher education). The establishment of a European system for credit transfer in vocational training – ECVET – seeks to use vocational qualifications “as a common currency Europe-wide”, according to political-programmatic formulations. In addition, the agreement on

European VET

87

JEIT 32,2/3

88

Figure 1. Development of the skilled labor structure

objectives from Copenhagen is comprised of further points, among others the validation of non-formal/informal training, the training of trainers and teachers, as well as the development of inter-disciplinary vocational training. The extensive work program will be taken care of by the so-called technical work groups, to which the experts in the commission as well as representatives of the national governments and the social partners belong. Notable here, is the fact that research on technical and vocational training and education is, at best, accidentally integrated into this process, and that this field’s exceptional certainty when compared with all other political areas, results, above all, in the fact that in the majority of European countries, qualification of employees at the mid-skilled level is only a very limited element of any developed research on occupational education and training[2]. Two instruments that are still to be realized from the Copenhagen Process shall be examined below: the European Credit Transfer System for vocational training and the efforts towards establishment of comparability for occupational training certificates. 2. Transparency versus harmonisation Of central importance in Germany is vocational training and its federally-recognized training certificates, which are regulated by vocational training laws and by the crafts system. A particularity in the process of internationalization, which more or less encompasses all economic sectors, is that the training of skilled workers is deeply affected by the national vocational training structures and systems. In contrast with higher education, therefore, the terms and conditions for the exchange of trainees, trainers, and teachers is seriously limited. One particular exception consists of crafts whose roots reach back to the era of development of the European nation-states. Crafts vocations such as hairdresser, cook, carpenter, and mason are virtually international occupations. The vocational training “Olympics” competitions within the crafts, where the best-trained craftspeople are ascertained, is based on this tradition. For healthcare and security-related occupations European-Union-wide centralized standards apply. In

the realm of academic occupations as well as in some craft- and healthcare fields there is, therefore, a high measure of transparency and comparativeness, passed down or agreed upon internationally through job descriptions or training styles. The early attempts of the European Community to harmonize vocational training, in order to support the development of a European labor market were quickly given up[3], as the pressure for economic harmonization between very diverse occupational training structures was too little to overcome the great differences. This essentially changed with the acceleration of the internationalization processes within the realms of economics and technology during the last two decades, which was also accompanied by the international agreements for liberalization of trade with services (GATS) of 1994. Thus, trade liberalization for manufactured goods spread into the service sector[4]. From the collapse of the beginning of harmonization in the educational sector, which eventually ended in an expressed ban on harmonization, vocational training was also affected, in that this was applied to the system in all countries, which had a school-based vocational education. In countries where vocational training was assigned more to the realm of economic and labor law and where such training is organized based on market structures, the ban on harmonization played, in reality, no real role. In contrast to the area of higher education with its international Scientific Communities and the comparable educational structures which have come out of these, a project seeking to realize a common European “space” for vocational training faces disproportionatly high obstacles. Therefore, the duality of on-the-job and school-based vocational education and differentiated vocational training sorted by type of vocation are not only the specialty of just a few member countries, but so, too, are the length of training and educational programs where noncompatible, national rules apply. The creation of transparency on the basis of European-defined vocational types and educational structures thus, from the start, separates them from one another[5]. This is a basic difference between vocational training and education within the higher educational system. Not only a great amount of academic vocations such as doctor, lawyer, engineer, natural scientist as well as social scientist, but also internationally regulated educational areas of three to four years culminating in a degree (Bachelor) and (circa) five-year-long courses of study ending in a Masters’ Degree in extensively comparable fields of study, present, on the whole, a high degree of uniformity and thus also transparency. Science, in and of itself, is the result of these international processes. Thus the step which the German higher educational system must take to a reach a European higher education and scientific realm was great, measured by the traditional reform pace of German higher education, but small, when compared with the European project of a European “space” for vocational education and training. The way towards creation of transparency in vocational training: a modulized certification system In order to create transparency within the impossible to overlook diversity and variety of vocational training programs and certificates, following the persuasive logic of the transparency attempts of the European Commision and its need for an “alphabet of skills” with which qualifications of workers at the mid-skilled level will be respresented. Therefore, following the logical argument, the borders between vocationally-organized work and the incompatibility between very different work systems which stems from this work permit themselves to be cancelled. Following this

European VET

89

JEIT 32,2/3

90

logic, vocations represent in-company demarcations and limit the flexibility of in-company organizational development and, finally, the ability to innovate (Kern and Sabel, 1994). At the level of a European job market, in addition, non-compatible national vocational structures lead to intransparency and to compartmentalization between the national skilled labor markets, according to the promoters of the Copenhagen Process. Formally considered, the degree of modulization increases the possibility of establishing transparency between different training systems. At the level of each individual, defined vocational skill, for example autogenous welding, or other clearly definable skills, the intransparency of national vocational training systems and traditions are volatilized. Regardless of whatever level of aggregation the skills are also being defined at, those defined through an “alphabet of qualifications and skills” are not related to the context of vocational competence defined through job descriptions and the “vocationalness” (German: Beruflichkeit) that has been constituted from them. The understanding is that a sum of individual vocational skills dramatically differentiate themselves from “vocational competence” but remain thus unconsidered (for critiques, cf. Ja¨ger, 1989; Sennett, 1998; Rauner, 1998). Modularly standardized skills promise the greatest flexibility during the accumulation of marketable skills. The definition of a minimal amount of time for qualified vocational training, comparable with the EU regulations for higher educational certificates, can then be eliminated. The UK System of National Vocational Qualifications (NVQ) with its assessment-suitable modulization structure is a suitable point of reference. That this open architecture of a European space for vocational training does not constitute a vocational training system in the sense of the ban on harmonization, but rather is simply an instrument for the establishment of transparency, justifies its attractiveness and prominence for European politics. In the long-term, a benchmark for orientation for national vocational education and training politics is presented and cancels, in the final consequence, national jurisdiction on important dimensions of vocational training. 3. European credit transfer system for vocational education and training – ECVET Naturally, a more exact definition of the criteria with which skills can be mastered belongs to a complete definition of the transparency of vocational skills. For the Copenhagen Process it was determined that the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS), developed for higher education, should be applied to vocational training, and that the two should be combined. This would become the foundation for an Assessment System and an Assessment Organization, which, following standarized criteria, verifies if a skill has been acceptably mastered. This verification takes place on the level of ability, less so at the level of abstract knowledge, and not at all at the level of understanding. The working groups responsible for the ECVET in the realization of the Copenhagen Process defined the goals of their project in several documents[6]: . improved ease of transfer of the results of learning both between and within national educational systems, as well as between formal, non-formal, and informal skills adopted at the level of the program, course, module, and unit as a whole, whereas units represent the smallest possible measurable result of learning;

.

.

.

facilitation of the accumulation of educational, training, and learning units (modules) or of qualification units and, respectively, program units, which show a partial or full qualification in their results regardless of the purpose for which the learning has taken place; encouraging transparency and the mutual recognition between learning processes and results of learning; and improvement of mobility in educational, training, and learning processes as well as facilitation of vocational mobility.

Alongside ECVET, vocational competency-based qualifications should be included in the accumulation system, regardless of where and how the qualifications (formal or informal) defined in the modules were acquired. In the process, compatibility between ECVET and ECTS will be the goal[7]. If this succeeds, then a central goal of the Copenhagen Declaration can be realized, namely, the creation of a qualification system which is demand-driven and market-oriented in its organization, so that every individual has the chance to assemble his or her own competence and qualification profile in an a` la carte manner. That work-relevant competence is also acquired outside of formal, regulated training offers and educational courses of study means that a further instrument of the Copenhagen Process, namely, compilation and certification of informally acquired skills, only increases in meaning. The more this succeeds, all the more will it soon be possible to unhinge “vocational training” from structures of regulated vocational education and training systems, and to bring responsibility for the qualification of individuals to the forefront. That, at least, is the central argument of the protagonists. A modulized certification system creates the foundation for a European market for continuing education. A system for initial vocational training with defined channels for training, certificates, and time frames, is then superfluous. A differentiation between initial vocational training and further education is not applicable. Vocational Colleges in the UK are therefore, consistently, called “Further Educational Colleges”. After completion of general-education schooling the graduates themselves decide which skills they wish to acquire in order to increase their “employability”, as well as decide if they should take courses in a Further Educational College. Here, costs for accreditation of those institutions offering qualification as well for the certification of the acquired competence play a role in how much demand comes from graduates and employees. The evidence, used again and again in the Commission’s documentation, that it is dealing, in the planned ECVET, with the realization of a European currency for vocational education and training with effects comparable to those attributed to the introduction of the Euro currency, isn’t just misleading as seen in multiple hindsight, but is also so far removed from reality that the use of this argument in discussions around educational politics has triggered some surprises. A currency such as the Euro, which has been referred to here, distinguishes itself through its exchange value. What is revolutionary about a unified currency is that any products or services can be measured through their exchange value. Credit points, which a student or learner gains for a specific educational accomplishment, are connected to the contents of the training in question and can’t directly be exchanged for other training contents or skills. A learner who is learning the trade of “car mechatronic” and completes a part of his or her training in another country, can value

European VET

91

JEIT 32,2/3

92

and assess this part of his or her training through a functioning ECVET System. The interesting question here for companies conducting training and for learners is if this part of a training fits in with the contents and time frame of their own course of training. The number of Credit Points assigned to it is secondary. In any case a ECVET System presupposes module-based skills defined within a European system of qualification modules. The currency character of ECVET, which continuously comes to the forefront in discussions of European vocational politics, gains above all substantial meaning when it is applied to the evaluation of qualification achievements in a global education market, as the WTO has in mind. The difficulty in implementing such a system lies in the fact that modules must also fit into a common frame of reference. Naturally, this would be most quickly ensured through the implementation of Europe-wide job descriptions. For countries with developed vocational training systems, the question here arises if the concept of complete vocational training within accepted jobs that require training should be given up in favor of earning certified qualifications. Negative consequences of the ECVET system would, above all, be expected for a regulated vocational initial training probram which is implemented below the legally-regulated vocational initial training minimum time period for systems of partial qualification. The concept of “vocationality” (German: Beruflichkeit) will lose the constituent meaning it has for vocational training. Vocational training would not be tied to growing into the vocational community of practice and the development of vocational identity that is connected to it. A certain meaning becomes allocated for ECVET for the acceptance of training records in the framework of initial vocational education for continuing vocational educational programs. For the acceptance of training records in the framework of a technical college, for example as a technician or an educational professional at the level of continuing education such a regulation is quite attractive. The implementation of the ECVET indeed bears the risk, within the very heterogenous landscape of European vocational training, that contents of training and education programs, which are simply not comparable, are being compared with each other. If, in an assessment procedure, for example, a specific form of acquisition of vocational competence between in-company and school-based abstracted, then the credit points lose their force of expression. Looked at in this way the metaphor of credit points serving as a European currency for vocational training points at a great educational-political misunderstanding. 4. Common European framework of reference for the recognition of qualifications On the recommendation of the European Commission, the European Parliament decided on a general guideline for the recognition of vocational qualifications[8]. With it, different general regulations for the recognition of qualifications and those for regulated vocations (above all in the healthcare field) should be replaced through a single guideline. At the same time it is a matter of an initiative, that is indeed remotely relevant for the creation of a European space for vocational training, but which is however from its start has as a goal the simplification and improvement of the regulatory field for the European common market. Already so far, for example, competitors for (construction) projects whose contracts were issued on a Europe-wide basis have had to account for the qualification potential of those making the offers

under the five-level common framework for the presentation of qualifications, which has been in place since 1985. The initiative for this regulation emanated from the Parliamentary Committee for the European common market. Following the first reading in Parliament and the 125 requests for change presented at it, the European Commission put forward a revised proposal which provides for the following five qualification levels[9]. Acceptance from the Council has already taken place[10]. The second reading in the European Parliament has not yet occurred: [. . .] – Level 1 is equivalent to a competence certificate, is issued from an appropriate agency in a home member state for either a) a training which is not part of a training or competency certificate in the sense of Paragraphs 3,4,5, or 6, or a specific test without previous training, or practicing a vocation as a full-time job in a member state during three consecutive years or part time during a corresponding time frame within the last ten years; or b) as a certificate for a general school-based training from the primary or secondary level which certifies that the bearer possesses general knowledge. [. . .] – Level 2 is equivalent to a test certificate, is issued for the end of a course of study at the secondary level, which a) either consists of general education, which has been fulfilled through a vocational training program or another course of study not named in Paragraph 4, and/or is fulfilled through a vocational internship or practical job experience which is additional to this course of study, b) or is comprised of a technical training or vocational training which, as the case may be, is supplemented through a vocational training in the sense of a) above, and/or through an additional vocational internship or practical job experience. [. . .] – Level 3 is equivalent to a degree or diploma which is conferred either a) through a post-secondary education not named in Paragraph 5 or 6 of at least one year in duration or a post-secondary part-time course of study of at least one year in duration which has admission requirements counting towards a general secondary school education, which are stipulated for acceptance at a college or university program, where applicable supplemented through vocational training undertaken alongside the post-secondary course of study; b) or for a specially-structured training course, which allows for a comparable vocational ability and prepares for comparable vocational functions and responsibilities. [. . .] – Level 4 is equivalent to a degree or diploma which confirms that the bearer has successfully completed a post-secondary course of study, at the equivalent level, of at least three and no more than four years or a part-time course of equivalent duration at a college or university as well as, where applicable, completed the appropriate vocational training alongside study at a college or university. [. . .] – Level 5 is equivalent to a degree or diploma which certifies that the bearer has completed a post-secondary educational course of study or a part-time course or study of more than four years at a university or college, or another educational course of study at an equivalent level as well as, where applicable completed the appropriate vocational training alongside this course of study (Rauner and Grollmann, 2004).

The transition from the second level to the third is primarily defined through the transition from a secondary- to a post-secondary educational level. All qualification forms and courses of study, which elude this classification, cannot be classified according to this conception of levels. This applies, for example, to dual training. Dual training is continuously assigned to secondary education, although dual training, following the description of the five levels, in particular. with regard to the activities taken within the work process, could be assigned to the the third or even the fourth level of qualification (Rauner and Grollmann, 2004) Comparative curricular analysis

European VET

93

JEIT 32,2/3

94

can easily make this clear (Frommberger and Reinisch, 1999). In addition, the first study examined by the author on the competence of bankers in England, in comparison with those trained in Germany has brought to light the relative undervaluation of the dual training system (Fulst-Blei, 2003). A graduate of a vocational high school or of a technical grammar school (with advanced technical certificate) or of another senior high school level, who has finished a vocational training from three to three-and-a-half years (for example banker, informational technologist, or process guidance electronics engineer), after his or her “secondary education diploma” (German: Sekundarstufe II-Abschluss), and who can already deal with vocationally-oriented and vocationally-qualifying courses and subjects, a vocational training, which, in single vocations and depending on configuration of the training groups approximates the quality of a three-year Bachelor’s degree program. This works, above all, when the benchmark applied is not that of the distance from an academic profession, but rather the quality of the work achieved is compared to the particular skilled-labor market. If a benchmark for professionality is the vocational competence of a skilled maintenance worker, who, for example, is responsible for the maintenance of complicated production equipment, then the academically trained engineer (for example, in the field of electrical engineering) must, first of all, pass through a one- to two-year, praxis-oriented training or continuing education, in order to be able to master these tasks which according to the EU nomenclature are classified according to Level 2. In addition, in-company trainee programs, which have their origins in the Anglo-Saxon countries as well as in the French tradition of in-company personnel development, are, last but not least, based on the certainty that the graduates of “pure” academic programs must first acquire a series of vocationally utilizable competence and skills during practical, hands-on work (Oerter and Ho¨rner, 1994). The training to be a master craftsman (German: Meister) or any comparable, practice-oriented vocational educational degree, fulfills essential criteria of a training, which leads to vocational competence. Trained master craftsmen as a rule take over the leadership of a craft business and train skilled workers. While a trained master craftsman, who has already undergone considerable vocational experience during his master craftsman exam, and who is thus capable of running a business without appreciable adjustment – we can think here of a modern car dealership – can be a “High School Graduate “ – that is, someone who has 12 years of formal education behind him – while someone who has completed a Bachelor’s degree would indeed need at least two to three years to be able to act at the competence level of a Master in this example. Despite this, the first would be placed at qualification level 3 and the second at qualification level 4. An educator, who has a technical school education behind her, and, with this education, is comparable to a master craftsman or a technician in that she is also able to run a school, would be placed at the third qualification level, but her colleague, who completed her training at a College and has a Bachelors’ degree, would, in contrast, be placed at the fourth level. The difference in both concepts of qualification lies above all in the fact that with the latter, less practical competence has been imparted. For this reason we can see, in systems which are more strongly based on academically-graded degrees, the phenomenon known in the US literature as “reverse transfer”, in other words, BA or MA graduates visiting vocationally-oriented courses at a college or university after they have already earned their degree, in order to increase their chances of employment. In Annex II of the EU

Regulations on the Recognition of Vocational Degrees according to qualification level 1 can find countless examples which are dramatically underrated if one follows the logic of this system of qualification classification. Training for nautical management personnel for coastal shipping (Captain, Nautical Ship Officer, Ship Equipment and Installation Technicians, etc.) lasts between 14 and 18 years in Germany. In the Netherlands the training averages between 13 and 15 years, and in Italy it averages 13 years. One downright classic example of the extreme asymmetry of this arrangement and its uselessness is the training as “future master builder” or “future master carpenter” in Austria. Their training consists of a minimum of at least 18 years. This particularly long and above all very intensive training, in which phases of practical experience and phases of theoretical education alternate with one another, does not lead, according to this qualification level classification, to level 5, where it belongs without a doubt, but rather – according to the logic of academic-oriented education, to level 3 (!). If you take, instead of academic professionality, the types of competence which are actually employed within the system, then not much remains from the European Union’s five-level qualification grid. In the end, if a recognition regulation for vocational qualifications is to be considered, then it is precisely the classic academic professions – and this applies internationally – which have always systematically included learning through vocational experience in their courses. In an analysis that uses the development of vocational competence as its starting point, practical work experience takes on a decisive meaning. It is no accident that all traditional professions include practice phases, seen as of central importance for the ability to act professionally and competently, during or after the period of formal training, and which also serve as preconditions for admission into the respective professions. This applies to doctors and lawyers as well as for civil engineers and pharmacists. In addition, historically considered, the development of professions on the basis of the interplay between knowing and being able to do something and the respective places for further development of both domains can also be thus understood (West, 2000). This perspective has, in the meantime, an orientation towards a formal, sociological concept of professionalism within research on the professions, and its orientation towards status, professional organizations, and similar indicators, has long been replaced. “Professionalism” has come, in the meantime, to mean the skill of acting competently and responsibly in various situations (Eraut, 1994; Gardner et al., 2001). That in this case useful knowledge may have been acquired in formal educational processes is, above all, also the product of reflective pratice in contact with situative challenges of vocational praxis and the “growing into” so-called communites of vocational practice (Scho¨n, 1983; Lave and Wenger, 1991). Learning in the working process and learning in academic settings appear to have more of a complementary than a substitutive relationship. For this reason the often well-intentioned requirements for improved accreditation systems for so-called non-formal learning appear to be a blind alley which follows an overall concept of developing equivalence between different forms of learning, and in which the non-formal learning is classified into the categories of formal learning, instead of gearing itself towards the goal of an integration of different, equivalent, complementary forms of learning with regard to the development of vocational competence. In total, this leads to a clear undervaluation of dual forms of vocationally-qualifying educational pathways as well as – conversely – to a continual over-valuation of academic as well as school-based learning, which, not infrequently, fall behind dual

European VET

95

JEIT 32,2/3

96

vocational training in their quality. All forms of vocational training, which also base themselves on reflective work experience, are discriminated against in an “image competition” with academic courses of study. The loss of attractiveness for these courses of study is feared, insofar as the danger lies in the fact that well-meaning benchmarks for the recognition of so-called non-formal learning tend to concretize the status quo rather than drawing nearer to the goal of parity between vocational and general education and training. Considering that the creators of many European architectural masterworks, which we admire as undying cultural monuments, were not created by academically trained engineers, but rather by master craftsmen, who above all had a great degree of practical competence at their disposal, and who could draw upon the experience gathered over centuries, then, the absurdity of the five-level concept for the recognition of vocational competence becomes quite clear. These master builders would indeed, according to the EU regulations as well as the Austrian “future master builder” training not just be under-valued, but would, far removed from the reality of their actual qualifications, be classified as “advanced beginners” and “semi-professionals”. 5. Conclusion and perspectives With the creation of a real job market which guarantees the freedom of movement of workers, Europe faces the question as to whether to decide for or against types of vocational training which have vocationally-oriented work as their center point. The Copenhagen Process indeed encourages, with its central instruments such as, for example, ECVET, the tendency towards a European job market that is based on modulized and, more or less abstract, qualifications. With the concept of sectoral dialog the way, however, towards the develoment of core European vocations as the basis for skilled work-based labor markets is still possible. Above all the possibility of developing vocational identity in the modern sense of “vocationality” (German: Beruflichkeit) and the resulting motivation will be emphasized as decisive measurements for the ability to be economically competitive and socially stable. The structuralizing effect that proceeds from a modern vocational and vocational training and education system for the interaction between the educational sector and the job sector has numerous advantages compared to other forms of qualification. There is a lot to be said for pursuing the more difficult, yet more promising, way, for creating a space for European vocational training, namely, the development of a European vocational and vocational training system on the basis of open and dynamic core vocations and on a system of modern apprenticeship, as it has, for example, been realized in Scotland in the last decade. Instead of a discussion about dynamic core vocations and their development, the technical agenda of the working groups in the Copenhagen Process is, however, focusing on work on common reference levels. This work should later be part of a European Qualifications Framework, in which all learning achievements of general and vocational training as well as formal and informal learning processes can be classified. One of the forms of expertise, custom built by the English Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) (Coles and Oats, 2004) for such a general common frame of reference is arranging for such a system with eight levels. The experiences with ECVET and the European qualification levels refer to the great risk of an impending undervaluation of vocational competence.

Notes 1. Tender No. EAC/84/03 Achieving the Lisbon goal: the contribution of vocational education and training systems. Background study for a ministerial conference on “Strengthening European cooperation on VET” under the Dutch presidency, Tender-Nr. EAC/84/03, 2004. 2. The central cause of this is that teachers and lecturers in vocational education and training are only seldom educated at the University level. Thus, the university-based infrastructure for qualification of academic new blood as well as university-based research on vocational and technical education and training is lacking in the majority of EU countries. 3. Within the area of vocational training, the European Community agreed on a legal foundation in Article 128 of the Community Agreement. In 1963 this led to the formulation of a European vocational training policy. Jurisdiction laid with the Labor and Economic Ministries – not with Educational Ministries. This only changed in the middle of the 1980s (Sellin, 2002). 4. This agreement specifically includes the market for further education (Kopp, 2003). In the Anglo-Saxon countries the international commercialization of education on the basis of modulized certification systems has a long -standing tradition. 5. A case in point was the attempt in the 1980s, on the basis of a job classification system, to build corresponding job descriptions, which was abandoned (Sellin and Piehl, 1995). 6. Compare, for example, the preliminary report from October 2003, or the “Consultation Paper” presented in August 2004. 7. Spontaneousness with reference to participation is designed for ECVET, while participation in the Bologna Process arises as a voluntary obligation of member states and the responsible bodies. 8. Compare this, in more detail, with Rauner and Grollmann (2004) and Grollmann in this volume. 9. Compare with the following document: KOM (2004) 317 endg., Brussels, 20.2.2004; 2002/0061 (COD) Revised Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the European Council on the Recognition of Vocational Qualifications (according to Article 250, Paragraph 2 of the EC Treaty, presented by the Commission). 10. Greece and Germany have not endorsed the proposal. Endorsement, in this case, is not required; a qualified majority is sufficient. The most difficult hurdle for a Directive of the European Council is decision-making while in session. References Coles, M. and Oats, T. (2004), “European reference levels for education and training. An important parameter for promoting credit transfer and mutual trust”, unpublished manuscript, London. Eraut, M. (1994), Developing Professional Knowledge and Competence, Falmer, London. Frommberger, D. and Reinisch, H. (1999), “Ordnungsschemata zur Kennzeichnung und zum Vergleich von Berufsbildungssystemen in deutschsprachigen Beitra¨ gen zur international-vergleichenden Berufsbildungsforschung: Methodologische Fragen und Reflexionen”, Zeitschrift fu¨r Berufs- und Wirtschaftspa¨dagogik, Vol. 95 No. 3, pp. 323-43. Fulst-Blei, S. (2003), Im Spannungsfeld von Modularisierung und Europa¨isierung: die deutsche duale Berufsausbildung im Test; ein deutsch-englischer Leistungsvergleich, Hampp, Mu¨nchen. Gardner, H., Csikszentmihalyi, M. and Damon, W. (2001), Good Work – When Excellence and Ethics Meet, Basic Books, New York, NY.

European VET

97

JEIT 32,2/3

98

Ja¨ger, C. (1989), “Die kulturelle Einbettung des Europa¨ischen Marktes”, in Zapf, W. (Ed.), Kultur und Gesellschaft, Campus, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 556-74. Kern, H. and Sabel, Ch.F. (1994), “Verblasste Tugenden. Zur Krise des deutschen Produktionsmodells”, in Beckenbach, N. and van Treeck, W. (Eds), Umbru¨che gesellschaftlicher Arbeit. Soziale Welt, Sonderband 9, Go¨ttingen, pp. 605-24. Kopp, B. (2003), “von Globalisierung, Liberalisierung, Deregulierung und GATS: Gefahr fu¨r das o¨ffentliche Schulwesen?”, Tibi, Vol. 1 No. 1. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991), Situated Learning. Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. Oerter, R. and Ho¨rner, W. (1994), “Frankreich”, in Lauterbach, U. (Ed.), Internationales Handbuch der Berufsbildung, Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp. F13-F131. Rauner, F. (1998), “Moderne Beruflichkeit”, in Euler, D. (Ed.), Berufliches Lernen im Wandel – Konsequenzen fu¨r die Lernorte? Dokumentation des 3., Forums Berufsbildungsforschung 1997 an der Friedrich-Alexander-Universita¨t Erlangen-Nu¨rnberg, Nu¨rnberg, pp. 153-71. Rauner, F. and Grollmann, Ph. (2004), “Einheitlicher Qualifikationsrahmen im Bru¨gge/Kopenhagen-Prozess zwischen Schulabschluss und Kompetenz”, Berufsbildende Schule, Vol. 56 Nos 7/8, pp. 159-65. Scho¨n, D.A. (1983), The Reflective Practitioner – How Professionals Think in Action, Basic Books, New York, NY. Sellin, B. (2002), “Bildung in Europa”, in Tippelt, R. (Ed.), Handbuch Bildungsforschung, Leske þ Budrich, Opladen, pp. 201-16. Sellin, B. and Piehl, E. (1995), “Berufliche Aus- und Weiterbildung in Europa”, in Arnold, R. and Lipsmeier, A. (Eds), Handbuch der Berufsbildung, Leske þ Budrich, Opladen, pp. 441-54. Sennett, R. (1998), Der flexible Mensch, Die Kultur des neuen Kapitalismus, Berlin. Tender-Nr. EAC/84/03 (2004), “Achieving the Lisbon goal: the contribution of vocational education and training systems”, background study for a Ministerial Conference on Strengthening European Cooperation in VET under the Dutch Presidency. West, J. (2000), “Higher education and employment: opportunities and limitations in the formation of skills in a mass higher education system”, Journal of Vocational Education and Training, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 573-88. Corresponding author Felix Rauner can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0590.htm

Can performance-related learning outcomes have standards?

Performancerelated learning

Michaela Brockmann and Linda Clarke Westminster University, London, UK, and

99

Christopher Winch King’s College London, London, UK Abstract Purpose – This paper aims to explain the distinction between educational standards and learning outcomes and to indicate the problems that potentially arise when a learning outcomes approach is applied to a qualification meta-framework like the European Qualification Framework, or indeed to national qualification frameworks. Design/methodology/approach – The methods used are documentary, political and conceptual analysis, with some reference to empirical work carried out in relation to other projects. Findings – It is found that there are substantial differences between learning outcomes and standards with large educational and political implications. Furthermore, the “pure” form of learning outcomes approach contains a design flaw, which makes its coherent implementation problematic. Research limitations/implications – The stimulation of further research on learning outcomes based approaches to qualifications and the problems that arise in their implementation. Practical implications – The EU needs to think carefully about the fitness for purpose of the current descriptors for EQF and whether or not it is desirable to move away from a pure outcome-based approach to qualification frameworks and meta-frameworks. Originality/value – As far as the authors are aware, this is the first paper to draw attention to this distinction. Keywords Learning, Standards, National vocational qualifications, Europe Paper type Conceptual paper

Introduction There is a fundamental design issue in attempts to provide a European Qualifications Framework (EQF) and on the basis of this to increase the transparency and transferability of vocational and professional qualifications[1]. This is the adoption of a learning outcomes (LO) approach to qualification comparators, qualifications and qualification systems themselves which underlies one of the key instruments of the Lisbon Process, namely the European Qualification Framework (EQF) – due to be adopted by the Council of Ministers in late 2007. Yet, as we show such an approach may compromise this process and thereby risks undermining the goal of achieving European comparability. The EQF is described as a “reference tool” which allows qualifications from different educational systems to be compared at a criterion referenced level of equivalence (EU, 2006, p. 8; Coles and Oates, 2003, p. 36, para 6.27). It consists of eight levels comprising three aspects of outcome: knowledge, skill, competence. The horizontal levels range from primary/low level secondary school completion (level 1) to doctoral (level 8). Each level has a descriptor in each of the three vertical categories (Appendix). The EQF is not explicitly attached to any curriculum or pedagogic processes. It is designed to be used

Journal of European Industrial Training Vol. 32 No. 2/3, 2008 pp. 99-113 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0309-0590 DOI 10.1108/03090590810861659

JEIT 32,2/3

100

with qualifications gained through APEL (Accreditation of Prior Experiential Learning) as well as through more conventional routes. The “learning outcomes” approach is distinct from curricular and qualification systems that benchmark progress through criterion-referenced standards, as is the case with the Attainment Targets in the English National Curriculum, which are essentially waymarks along a progressive programme of study. Learning Outcomes (LO) cannot, of course, be standards in this sense, since the EQF is deliberately detached from any specific curriculum or pedagogical practice. It is in this sense an “outcomes-based” framework par excellence. But herein lies the problem. The LO approach lacks coherence because it seeks to fulfil two incompatible functions: (1) to provide a notional progression in which achievement at each level beyond level 1 implicitly presupposes achievement at level 1 and all the levels below the one which is currently being assessed; and (2) to provide a means of establishing whether someone has satisfied the criteria at any given level irrespective of their achievements at any other level. To both implicitly presuppose achievement at a certain level and at the same time to act as if previous achievements below the level currently being assessed are irrelevant, within the same instrument, is to produce something that is either of little value or that is bound to throw up paradoxes that undermine its credibility. A second problem is to assume that learning outcomes can be devised without an explicit reference point, whether the curricula or labour market activities. This “stand-alone” nature of learning outcomes is a very Anglo-Saxon notion and inconceivable in most other European countries. Even in Britain it is difficult to conceive of learning outcomes, occupational standards and curricula as other than integrated, as somehow distinct from each other – certainly at a professional level. This is because learning outcomes are inevitably the “outcome” of a specific learning process which may, in its scope be shallow or deep, broad or narrow, and involve competences of a qualitatively different nature. However, in Britain with respect to vocational education and training (VET) the key reference point for learning outcomes is performance criteria in the workplace related to particular tasks or functions, to given outputs, such as erecting a masonry structure in the case of the bricklayer. In Germany, in contrast the key reference point is not the performance function per se but the development of the individual to become a bricklayer, as defined through the curriculum. In other words, in Britain the learning outcome refers to a performance output and in Germany to the Berufsbildung process, which is built on the attainment of standards at different levels. The assumption in the British case is that the output of the work process is what represents the learning process whilst in the German case it is provided through the curriculum, intended to enhance the value of the labour itself, unattached to a specific output. The question is whether performance output in the workplace can ever be associated with learning outcomes in the narrowly defined British sense. Educational aims, standards and curricula Learning outcomes therefore in themselves have very different reference points in different countries, with each country tending to apply its own reference point

without being explicit about this. In the Anglo-Saxon educational – as distinct from VET – debate, certain distinctions are drawn between standards, progression and levels of achievement. Pring, for instance, distinguishes between standards and performance, defining a standard as a measure or set of criteria against which the quality of a performance may be judged (Pring, 1992). Performances may vary against the standard set to judge them. Superficially, therefore, a standard looks like what is often called a “learning outcome” and often the terminology is used interchangeably. Curriculum designers are often invited to state the aims of a programme of study in terms of learning outcomes to be achieved, when what is meant is that they provide standards against which performance according to a curriculum is to be judged. In this educational context therefore “performance” is not directly related to a particular function or output in the workplace, but according to the curriculum. An educational aim, whether explicitly stated or implicitly followed, gives the general purposes for which education is being provided, whether this be for liberal, vocational or civic reasons or a mixture of all of these. By their nature, aims, when they are stated, are of quite a high degree of generality: for example, to promote autonomy, employability, civic responsibility. Within such general statements, curriculum designers are able to develop the content in terms of knowledge, skill, understanding, attitudes, and virtues that the student is expected to acquire or develop in order to fulfil those aims. Almost all curricula are progressive, that is to say they move from low levels of difficulty to higher ones in terms of volume and complexity of what is to be mastered and they also build content on the presupposition that previously learned content has been mastered. A curriculum is also a normative instrument – it tells teachers, students and administrators what ought to be taught and what is actually taught is expected to conform to that pattern. In order to judge the success of students in following a curriculum it is usual to assess the extent to which what has been taught has been learned. One can then assign a student’s performance in such an assessment to a certain standard of achievement. Achievement of the standard is often a condition of the achievement of a certain level of certification that signifies, for example, that one has completed a particular level of education. This assessment may be undertaken for formative purposes, to enable further learning to take place through diagnosis of strengths and weaknesses or for summative purposes, to register progression, to assign a student to a given educational route, for matriculation into tertiary education or as a labour market sign of employability. The English National Curriculum used in schools, for instance, is relatively unusual as it not only prescribes content in “programmes of study”, but also sets “levels of attainment”, which are standards, in Pring’s sense, of what should be achieved at certain levels. These are set out as “descriptors” or statements of what is expected of a performance in order for it to be assigned to a particular level. These levels are not strictly related to age, but are notionally so. They set out the kind of knowledge and skill required at each level within the curriculum and there are four assessment points which are age-related, at which students are assigned to a level in each subject. The idea of a “level” needs to be explained. The attainment of many kinds of knowledge, skill and understanding is conditional on the prior mastery of other kinds of knowledge, skill and understanding. If one knows that p implies that one already

Performancerelated learning

101

JEIT 32,2/3

102

knows q, then one has to learn q before one can learn p. The hierarchical nature of much of what is learned is one factor that governs curriculum design and the setting of standards indicating significant points up the hierarchy of cumulated knowledge. Grouping qualifications into levels of attainment, as the EQF does, implies that knowledge, skill and competence are to be considered in this way. Remove this assumption and much of the justification for organising a qualification system in levels disappears. The key point about such a system, and it is one that has equivalences in other European countries, is the internal connection between the different parts of the conceptual framework. The English education system has aims or general purposes, although these are generally too vague to give either direction to the system in terms of a criterion of overall success or to give curriculum designers sufficient guidance (White, 2007). Be that as it may, the curriculum should be written and taught so as to fulfil the aims and will be judged as a good curriculum to the extent that it does this. For example, National Curriculum English (Reading) at level 5 requires that students: [. . .] show understanding of a range of texts, selecting essential points and using inference and deduction where appropriate. In their responses, they identify key features, themes and characters and select sentences, phrases and relevant information to support their views. They retrieve and collate information from a range of sources (QCA, 2005).

Such a descriptor allows various assessment instruments to be designed in order to validly assign a student to this level, each selected in the context of the students’ progress through the curriculum, bearing in mind what they have already achieved. In this respect, standards, because they are related to curricula, have to be broad enough to provide a sufficient interpretation of the curriculum whose waypoints they are marks on. Any curriculum that is reasonably complex, which seeks to develop abilities, knowledge, understanding, attitudes and dispositions, is bound to be difficult to encapsulate in simple, very precise, statements related to highly particular behaviours. This, however, is precisely what is required of learning outcomes when these are referred to performance outputs. The NVQ philosophy as the source of learning outcomes The UK is unusual in that it has developed a type of vocational qualification that marks a break with curriculum and assessment design as described above and as conceived in the wider education system. National Vocational Qualifications (NVQs) were designed to provide assessment of ability for an individual without that individual necessarily having followed a curriculum or programme of instruction. This is achieved by aligning performance not with the curriculum but with the different functions in the workplace. As a result individuals receive accreditation for what they can do in the workplace rather than for what course they may have followed (Jessup, 1991). In the sense that performance is work-based, it is also designed to measure “skill” rather than underpinning knowledge as it is held that the only relevant property of the person assessed is h/her performance at work (Jessup, 1991). In order for such a system to work, a number of crucial assumptions are made: (1) Credit is given for learning that takes place irrespective of where and when it occurs, allowing what is usually known in England as APEL.

(2) “Skill”, related to ability to perform tasks or functions in the workplace, rather than knowledge is the main attribute to be accredited. The assumption is that what is valuable for work purposes is what that person can do rather than what they know. Even if knowledge is required for such performance, it is not necessary to assess it as what matters is the ability to perform tasks irrespective of what knowledge is necessary to perform them. (3) For “skill” to be assessed, there needs to be a successful demonstration, as a necessary and sufficient condition for an assessor to know that someone can perform a particular task. For this demonstration, criteria are required in the form of descriptors of tasks (called occupational standards), forming the basis of the descriptors of performance, which provide the assessment instrument for the qualification. Thus, a qualification can be constructed which draws together different occupational standards into a job or even an occupational description at a certain level, which can then be awarded according to successful performance according to the descriptors set out. (4) By their nature, such descriptions are precise in their formulation. They are meant to assess ability to perform a range of tasks in the workplace and it is assumed that such tasks are relatively restricted in their scope and thus susceptible of precise formulation in terms of behaviour. Whatever judgment is assumed for successful completion of the tasks is thought to be implicit in the behaviour and therefore not requiring assessment. A learning outcome therefore, in the sense in which that term is used within the NVQ system is a criterion of performance in the workplace which does not presuppose either aims or curriculum. This system goes together with a peculiarly Anglo-Saxon and class-based understanding of vocational – as distinct from general – education. In the vocational context, learning outcomes have been adopted as a certification principle, associated with narrowly defined, task oriented, activities that do not require significant levels of knowledge or understanding. In effect, it is not a system aimed at enhancing the value of labour itself but rather at performance output in the workplace. But, whilst for England and Wales the learning outcomes approach adopted for the EQF is likely to be interpreted in the NVQ sense, this does not mean that it will or can be so interpreted in countries that do not use such an LO-based approach and do not appreciate the important distinction between an LO and an educational standard. For such countries, the default attitude will be to regard the EQF descriptors as descriptions of standards rather than LOs. Educational aims and standards Educational aims are closely related to general criteria as to whether they have been achieved (Nuffield Review, 2004). An educational standard, whether academic, vocational, civic, religious or moral, provides a criterion for assessing whether or not, or to what extent, educational aims have been achieved. It is, therefore, a precondition and measuring rod for educational performance (Pring, 1992) and should not be confused with performance output in the workplace. When politicians say that “standards in education are rising” they usually mean that performances are rising against standards, used as a measuring rod. Since educational standards are set relative to educational aims, they may vary according to these, and to whether these

Performancerelated learning

103

JEIT 32,2/3

104

are judged to be appropriate or inappropriate. When the aims of education change, then judgements are made about which standards are or are not appropriate. These may change over time in terms of the demands made of students, either in terms of breadth or depth of knowledge required. Thus, we can make diachronic comparisons of standards in a particular country and draw some conclusions about whether they have risen or fallen, always bearing in mind that the aims which govern those standards may themselves have changed over time. More difficult is the idea of a synchronic comparison of standards, whereby the standards of different countries are compared with each other. If standards are set against aims, then one must assume broadly comparable aims in order to determine whether standards are comparable. Given so many large OECD countries’ reluctance to specify educational aims and significant differences between them, such an exercise as PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) is potentially flawed. Pisa is conducted over the education systems of the OECD countries to measure performances against a standard that embodies an explicit and implicit aim in terms of the economic effectiveness of the education system (PISA, 2006). Thus, there might be complaints raised in Germany that the mathematics curriculum, designed for relatively academic aims of mathematic education, leads to poor performance when measured against inappropriate standards. Learning outcomes Aims can thus provide guidance for setting appropriate standards and educational performance may give an indication as to how those aims are being met, indirectly through using the standards as a benchmark. Learning outcomes in the NVQ sense, however, purport to act – be this inadequately and impossibly – as a surrogate both for aims of education and for standards, as a statement of the knowledge, skills, attitudes and understanding that a student is expected to have reached at the end of a vocational programme or when h/she has attained a particular level of certification. In this respect, LOs represent a statement of the purposes of a vocational programme and an advance on NVQ descriptors, by measuring a broader range of attributes rather than just “skill”. LOs in this sense, however, fail as aims, because they specify these too narrowly in terms of individual performance-at-work attributes rather than of society’s purposes for vocational education. Neither are they intended to do the job of standards in the educational sense. Educational standards allow one to devise a range of assessment instruments and can measure competence and understanding in a broad, as well as a narrow sense. They also allow one to assess how well someone has met a standard, not merely whether or not they have done so in a binary sense as the occupational standards of the NVQ do. Learning outcomes in the NVQ sense, by their nature, can do neither of these things. Indeed for assessments that are broad and allow for differentiation, it is educational standards that are needed, not performance-related learning outcomes. The difficulty in using LOs in this sense is apparent in the example of truck drivers. An NVQ for Large Goods Vehicle (LGV) drivers seeks to ensure the safe and efficient driving of a large goods vehicle and has two levels of qualification, the higher one demonstrating more advanced driving and vehicle management abilities than the lower level one. What are the options?

(1) To specify that, at the lower level, the driver can operate the vehicle safely and efficiently. Then one has the problem that, at the higher level, this is not a requirement. One would be in the paradoxical position of stating that a less qualified driver would have to drive safely and efficiently while the more qualified driver need not do so. (2) To specify that, at the higher level, the driver can operate the vehicle safely and efficiently. Then one has the problem that, at the lower level, this is not a requirement. Yet the driver qualified at the lower level has to be able to do so, otherwise they would not be allowed to drive at all. In fact, the National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) for LGV drivers suggests that drivers only need to drive lorries safely and efficiently at level 3, thus grasping one horn of this dilemma (Skills for Logistics, 2003). Such a solution is only possible, however, because all drivers will already have a license, which presupposes that they can drive safely and efficiently irrespective of whether or not they have achieved any NVQ (Skills for Logistics, 2003). In effect, the driving license is a safety net, which saves the NVQ qualification from inoperability. This is the kind of problem that arises when learning outcomes relate to performance output. When performance, instead of being related to the carrying out of a particular task or output is instead attached to the development of the individual, it can be measured against a progressive and cumulative curriculum, which itself determines not only whether, but also to what extent, the relevant standards – or alternatively which standards on a progressive scale of standards, as in the English National Curriculum – have been met. Thus, were the NVQ for Large Goods Vehicle Drivers part of a curriculum to enhance the value of the labour of the lorry driver, driving safely would be a lower level requirement and any driver taking the higher level qualification would need to do the lower one as a prerequisite. The problem arises because of the implicit contradiction in performance-related learning outcomes that are meant to operate without regard to previous achievements and to rely on implicit cumulation of previous achievements. Just as standards can only be really understood in terms of the aims for which they provide a measure, so they also need to be understood in terms of the curricula that are designed for the aims to be achieved. The standards not only provide a measure of whether or not aims are being achieved but they also provide a goal for the curriculum, a measure of the success or otherwise of following a particular curriculum and, for students, the extent to which that curriculum – in the sense of “prescribed content of education” (Barrow, 1976; Winch, 1996) – was followed successfully. They thus face “upwards” towards aims and “downwards” towards curricula and failure to refer them to one or the other is a recipe for confusion. Yet this is what “outcome” based approaches to education threaten to do, by detaching criteria of success from any meaningful educational context. It is not difficult to find examples of the kind of confusion that learning outcomes engender, often because they are imported into systems which rely on standards for their operation. Take the English BTEC National Level 3 in Construction as an example[2]. Unit 1 covers Health, Safety and Welfare and is prefaced by a number of learning outcomes, whose content includes:

Performancerelated learning

105

JEIT 32,2/3

.

.

106

.

Accident prevention: risk assessments: items to be assessed, principal hazards, likely injury outcomes. Use of control measures: use of procedures, substances, lifting assessments and manual handling assessments, inspection, personal responsibility for health, safety and welfare. Legal uuties: legal duty of each person to obey safety rules and to use protective equipment, consequences of non-compliance for both the individual and the company (Edexcel, 2003).

This content is preceded by a statement of learning outcomes which, if taken seriously as assessment instruments, would not be capable of covering the stated content. For example: “Evaluate his or her role in accident prevention and the avoidance of dangerous conditions.” This hardly seems sufficient to assess the complex and extensive material covered in the course content, unless interpreted very broadly (contrary to the intended philosophy underlying learning outcomes). On the continent, in contrast LOs are interpreted as broad outcomes or competences, implicitly linked to curricula in the context of a broad occupational field. They are not intended as standards but as competence in the workplace – “What is expected of a person with qualification X?” – in terms of knowledge, skills and competencies. Performance-related “learning outcomes” in the Anglo-Saxon sense are not assessment instruments as such, as grading criteria allow one to distinguish between a pass, merit and distinction in this unit. A distinction in the BTEC Level 3 Construction example requires that one “analyse accident trends in the construction industry and calculate the cost of an accident in the workplace” (Edexcel, 2003), which clearly represents a standard and can be interpreted in different ways in different assessment instruments. Learning outcomes themselves cannot serve as assessment instruments in this sense. The breadth of standards, the narrowness of outcomes The Anglo-Saxon LO approach was originally designed for “lower level” tasks assumed to require little applied knowledge or understanding and little or no workplace responsibility (Raggatt and Williams, 1999). Since learning outcomes are, by their nature, narrowly conceived, what they measure is also narrowly conceived. It follows that there are difficulties in specifying learning outcomes for activities that, by their nature, are broad in scope, require underpinning knowledge for their performance and more complex personal characteristics than simple, visually observable, skills. Indeed, the inadequacy of a learning outcome approach is apparent in the example of the level 3 BTEC National in Construction. The EQF is however a framework for the organisation of learning outcomes of a different order because it is itself an umbrella for all outcomes at all levels and necessarily consists of broad descriptors of knowledge, skill and competence at each level. It is thus misleading as a template for learning outcomes, which, as Coles (2007) has pointed out, differ from standards in being narrow descriptors whose satisfaction can be judged through relatively homogenous performances. Indeed, Coles (2007) uses the term “learning objectives” to mean what we call “standards” in the Anglo-Saxon sense: For example a module of learning on Roman history will include many objectives concerned with timelines, major events, significant rulers, transport systems, social developments and

so on. Assessment may sample across these aspects and will allow a general judgement of the level of knowledge of the Roman era to be made. On the other hand, the assessment of learning outcomes will usually be inclusive of all outcomes and will be based on assessment criteria relating to each outcome, for example the ability to describe the advance of the Roman army in Europe, or the ability to identify the distinguishing characteristics of the architecture of Roman public buildings (13).

Performancerelated learning

The comprehensiveness of an overarching framework masks the narrowness of the outcomes that are the subject of assessment. The EQF, or indeed any qualification framework, cannot be used to assess any particular workplace-based performance, but is a template for schemata, which are used to classify performances of a different order. It follows that there must be a structural symmetry between the design of the EQF and the national qualifications for which it is meant to act as a comparator. Currently, however, the EQF retains an ambiguity that different countries may interpret in different ways with some, like Germany regarding it as a comparator of standards and others, like England regarding it as a comparator of learning outcomes. This very ambiguity belies the difficulties inherent in operating such a system when performance is assessed not just according to output in the workplace but according to the development of individual labour through a curriculum and, where something more than narrow task-related skills and basic knowledge is required. In order to appreciate this point, it may perhaps be useful to look at EQF level 4 (lowest post baccalaureate level) (Table I). As apparent from Table I, knowledge in the EQF sense has to be located in broad contexts within a field[3]. In order to assess such knowledge one needs to specify the range of contexts. Likewise, the “field” is likely to be occupational rather than related to a job or task context and hence presupposes a broad scope of activity in itself, particularly where occupations are broadly conceived, as are German Berufe. If Wissen, as well as Kenntnis is to be assessed at this level, namely systematically organised knowledge, it is difficult to see how this can be achieved through narrowly specifiable performance-based learning outcomes in the Anglo-Saxon sense. What is required is to specify a range of learning outcomes without destroying the holistic or integrated nature of the occupational knowledge. In the Anglo-Saxon NVQ system, however, this is no easy task. In terms of “skills” for instance, a term that does not easily translate into other languages, questions arise

107

Knowledge

Skill

Competence

Factual and theoretical knowledge within broad contexts within a field of work or study

A range of cognitive and practical skills required to generate solutions to specific problems within a field of work or study

Exercise self-management within the guidelines of work or study context that are usually predictable but are subject to change Supervise the routine work of others, taking some responsibility for the evaluation and improvement of work or study activities

Source: EU (2006)

Table I. EQF level 4

JEIT 32,2/3

108

such as: how large is a range of cognitive and practical skills and how large is the range of problems to which they might be applied? In terms of competences, too, how is self-management and supervisory capacity to be assessed within broadly conceived contexts subject to change, given difficulties related to the sheer number of learning outcomes and the way in which they are jointly integrated. Assessing through learning outcomes at this level is a formidable task, even within the relatively narrowly conceived fields of operation characteristic of the British workplace context. For example NVQs above level three are suitable, by their nature, to accredit individuals who have detailed specialist knowledge, a range of related “skills” integrated with that knowledge and a considerable degree of operational responsibility. To accommodate this has required the development of “range statements” or statements, making clear the scope of the field to which learning outcomes apply. However, this modification makes the assessment system unwieldy and places a great deal of weight on the interpretation both of the outcomes and of the range over which they are applicable. Nor is the problem really solved by the specification of range statements, since the problem is to do with the narrowness of learning outcomes themselves and not with the broad range of circumstances in which narrowly conceived skills can be deployed. The apparent simplicity and intuitive nature of outcomes-based assessment is thereby lost at the higher levels and this, in large measure, accounts for the relatively unpopularity of higher levels of NVQ, as opposed to broadly standards-based assessment systems such as BTEC certificates and diplomas, HNDs (Higher National Diplomas) and Foundation Degrees. While such problems exist within the English context, they are very different in other countries, with implications for how the EQF is transposed. For instance, in the German context, in terms of the “skills” dimension the German version of EQF refers to Fertigkeiten at level 4, suggesting narrow skills. But if a level 4 is a higher Facharbeiter or occupational qualification, it will presuppose Fa¨higkeit or holistic and integrated capacity for occupational performance, which, by its nature, will be difficult, if not impossible, to assess by learning outcomes. For the EQF, all national qualifications need to be reconfigured in terms of learning outcomes, as has already been achieved in relation to many dual systems qualifications such as in Germany (as “competencies”), and in France and The Netherlands which have adopted outcomes-based approaches. This reconfiguration is totally different in those work environments that presuppose broad occupational tasks in complex and changing environments in which self-management and the assumption of responsibility are key features of successful performance. Here learning outcomes no longer delimit narrow and specific behaviours and items of knowledge but become broad descriptors, as with the referentiels de competences in France, able to accommodate change. It is a key feature of high-level occupational performance that knowledge, skill and competence are integrated and that a field of knowledge – not only the items within it but also the central propositions and concepts – local inferential warrants and procedures for developing and testing new knowledge – is understood (Hirst, 1974; Toulmin, 1957). In occupationally-oriented VET systems, it is the integration of specific narrow task-related abilities (Fertigkeiten) within broader occupational capacities (Fa¨higkeiten) that is the issue of interest for the assessor and their clients.

Policy consequences The very feature of EQF that makes it inappropriate as a learning outcomes template in the Anglo-Saxon sense of an exhaustive list of tasks (rather than broad indicators of Kompetenz in an occupational field), namely its breadth, is also what makes it useful in relation to educational inputs: curricular and pedagogic processes, albeit in modified form. From interviews we have conducted as part of a research project for the Nuffield Foundation[4], it is evident that recruiting employers are interested in curricula, the nature of workplace experience and the relatedness of competencies and knowledge, rather than in specifications of learning outcomes per se. They are even prepared to commission research into specific qualifications and their national and contextual background in order to obtain information for recruitment purposes. The EQF needs to be supplemented by curricular, pedagogical, assessment and contextual information that allows an employer or a trade union to make a judgment as to what level any given qualification might be set within the overall framework. Sectoral social partners could then work out which qualifications belonged at which level of the EQF, serving as a preliminary indicator of the kind of qualification. In this way the EQF could be considered as a standards framework and treated accordingly, with modifications at lower levels where its specifications are unreasonably low. Both systematic knowledge and broad occupational abilities are presupposed for level 3 qualifications in occupations across many European countries. However, as currently conceived, the EQF systematically downplays these features, perhaps in order to accommodate British sensibilities. What needs to be brought to the fore is the continental interpretation of learning outcomes, as indicative outcomes of comprehensive VET systems leading to comprehensive qualifications. A system like EQF cannot be used to support both learning outcomes and standards across a set of countries that use either one or the other of these organising concepts for their qualification systems. This is because they are incompatible. Standards presuppose curricula and pedagogical processes, learning outcomes do not. Since standards at levels beyond the base explicitly presuppose cumulated knowledge, skill and understanding and learning outcomes do not, then they are incompatible with each other as they do not compare like with like. One cannot, for example, have a situation where a qualification for a lorry driver in one country at a given level explicitly presupposes the ability to drive safely and efficiently and the nominally equivalent qualification at the same level in another country does not. However, the problem with LOs attached to the performance of activities in the workplace is more radical than mere incompatibility with standards. LOs in this sense implicitly presuppose cumulated knowledge, skill and understanding in the assignment of an individual to a given level and explicitly deny that they dos so. Once the implicit is made explicit, the contradiction is apparent. Since anything follows from a contradiction (ex falso quodlibet, as mediaeval logicians put it), then the performance-based LO approach is fatally flawed.. It is also flawed because it refers to output in the workplace and not to the development of labour Instead of being based on LOs in this narrow sense because it refers to output in the workplace and not to the development of labour, to the development of the individual. Instead of being based on LOs in this sense, the EQF needs to act as a standards-based system and to supplement the broad categories that it covers with detailed information concerning the curricula, pedagogies and modes of assessment that underlie each qualification. Only then can it provide an indicator of the different values of labour in different countries.

Performancerelated learning

109

JEIT 32,2/3

110

Notes 1. This process is known as ECVET and presupposes the successful development of the EQF. 2. Originally qualifications offered by the well known and respected Business and Technical Education Council, “BTEC” now functions as a brand name for a particular type of qualification. 3. “Knowledge” is translated as Kenntnisse’ in the German version. However, it may be doubted whether we are dealing exclusively with Kenntnisse (contingent propositional knowledge) rather than Wissen (systematic propositional knowledge) at this level and beyond. Indeed this is admitted in the German version, where the knowledge section refers to “breites Spektrum an Theorie und Faktenwissen in einem Arbeits- oder Lernbereich.” 4. “Cross-national equivalence of vocational skills and qualifications”. References Barrow, R. (1976), Common Sense and the Curriculum, David Elgar, Cheltenham. Coles, M. (2007), Qualifications Frameworks in Europe – Platforms for Qualifications, Integration and Reform, EU Education and Culture DG, Brussels. Coles, M. and Oates, T. (2003), European Reference Levels for Education and Training, QCA, London. Edexcel (2003), Edexcel Level 3, BTEC Nationals in Construction, Edexcel, London. EU (European Union) (2006), Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council for the Establishment of a European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning, European Commission, Brussels, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/educ/ eqf/com_2006_0479_en.pdf (accessed 23 July 2007). Hirst, P.H. (1974), Knowledge and the Curriculum, Routledge, London. Jessup, G. (1991), Outcomes: NVQs and the Emerging Model of Education and Training, Falmer Press, London. Nuffield Review (2004), The Nuffield Review of 14-19 Education in England and Wales 1st Annual Report, available at: www.nuffield14-19review.org.uk/files/documents36-1.pdf (accessed 23 July 2007). PISA (2006), OECD Programme for International Student Assessment, available at: www.pisa. oecd.org/pages/0,2987,en_32252351_32235731_1_1_1_1_1,00.html (accessed 23 July 2007). Pring, R. (1992), “Standards and quality in education”, British Journal of Educational Studies, Vol. XXXX No. 1. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) (2005), English in the National Curriculum, QCA, London. Raggatt, P. and Williams, S. (1999), Government, Markets and Vocational Qualifications: An Anatomy of Policy, Falmer, London. Skills for Logistics (2003), Skills for Logistics Industry Qualifications: Driving Goods Vehicles, Skills for Logistics, Milton Keynes. Toulmin, S. (1957), The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. White, J.P. (2007), What Schools Are for and Why, Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain. Winch, C. (1996), Quality and Education, Blackwell, Oxford.

Performancerelated learning

Appendix Kenntnisse

Fertigkeiten

Kompetenz

Niveau 1

Grundlegendes

Zur Erreichung von Niveau 1 erforderliche Lernergebnisse

Allgemeinwissen

Grundlegende Fertigkeiten, die zur Ausfu¨hrung einfacher Aufgaben erforderlich sind

Arbeiten oder Lernen unter direkter Anleitung in einem vorstrukturierten Kontext

Niveau 2 Zur Erreichung von Niveau 2 erforderliche Lernergebnisse

Grundlegendes Faktenwissen in einem Arbeits- oder Lernbereich

Grundlegende kognitive und praktische Fertigkeiten, die zur Nutzung relevanter Informationen erforderlich sind, um Aufgaben auszufu¨hren und Routineprobleme unter Verwendung einfacher Regeln und Werkzeuge zu lo¨sen

Arbeiten oder Lernen unter Anleitung mit einem gewissen Maß an Selbststa¨ndigkeit

Niveau 3 Zur Erreichung von Niveau 3 erforderliche Lernergebnisse

Kenntnisse von Fakten Grundsa¨tzen, Verfahren und allgemeinen Begriffen in einem Arbeits- oder Lernbereich

Eine Reihe von kognitiven und praktischen Fertigkeiten zur Erledigung von Aufgaben und zur Lo¨sung von Problemen, wobei grundlegende Methoden, Werkzeuge, Materialien und Informationen ausgewa¨hlt und angewandt werden

Verantwortung fu¨r die Erledigung von Arbeits- oder Lernaufgaben u¨bernehmen bei der Lo¨sung von Problemen das eigene Verhalten an die jeweiligen Umsta¨nde anpassen

Niveau 4

Breites Spektrum an Theorie und Faktenwissen in einem Arbeits- oder Lernbereich

Eine Reihe kognitiver und praktischer Fertigkeiten, um Lo¨sungen fu¨r spezielle Probleme in einem Arbeits- oder Lernbereich zu finden

Selbststa¨ndiges Ta¨tigwerden innerhalb der Handlungsparameter von Arbeits- oder Lernkontexten, die in der Regel bekannt sind, sich jedoch a¨ndern ko¨nnen Beaufsichtigung der Routinearbeit anderer Personen, wobei eine gewisse Verantwortung fu¨r die Bewertung und (continued)

Zur Erreichung von Niveau 4 erforderliche Lernergebnisse

111

Table AI. The European Qualification Framework

JEIT 32,2/3

Kenntnisse

Fertigkeiten

Kompetenz Verbesserung der Arbeitsoder Lernaktivita¨ten u¨bernommen wird

112

Table AI.

Niveau 5 Zur Erreichung von Niveau 5 erforderliche Lernergebnisse

Umfassendes, spezialisiertes Theorie- und Faktenwissen in einem Arbeits- oder Lernbereich sowie Bewusstsein fu¨r die Grenzen dieser Kenntnisse

Umfassende kognitive und praktische Fertigkeiten die erforderlich sind, um kreative Lo¨sungen fu¨r abstrakte Probleme zu erarbeiten

Leiten und Beaufsichtigen in Arbeits- oder Lernkontexten, in denen nicht ¨ nderungen vorhersehbare A auftreten U¨berpru¨fung und Entwicklung der eigenen Leistung und der Leistung anderer Personen

Niveau 6 Zur Erreichung von Niveau 6 erforderliche Lernergebnisse

Fortgeschrittene Kenntnisse in einem Arbeits- oder Lernbereich unter Einsatz eines kritischen Versta¨ndnisses von Theorien und Grundsa¨tzen

Fortgeschrittene Fertigkeiten, die die Beherrschung des Faches sowie Innovationsfa¨higkeit erkennen lassen, und zur Lo¨sung komplexer und nicht vorhersehbarer Probleme in einem spezialisierten Arbeitsoder Lernbereich no¨tig sind

Leitung komplexer fachlicher oder beruflicher Ta¨tigkeiten oder Projekte und ¨ bernahme von U Entscheidungsverantwortung in nicht vorhersagbaren Arbeitsoder Lernkontexten ¨ bernahme der U Verantwortung fu¨r die berufliche Entwicklung von Einzelpersonen und Gruppen

Niveau 7 Zur Erreichung von Niveau 7 erforderliche Lernergebnisse

Hoch spezialisiertes Wissen, das zum Teil an neueste Erkenntnisse in einem Arbeits- oder Lernbereich anknu¨pft, als Grundlage fu¨r innovative Denkansa¨tze kritisches Bewusstsein fu¨r Wissensfragen in einem Bereich und an der Schnittstelle zwischen verschiedenen Bereichen

Spezialisierte Problemlo¨sungsfertigkeiten im Bereich Forschung und/oder Innovation, um neue Kenntnisse zu gewinnen und neue Verfahren zu entwickeln sowie um Wissen aus verschiedenen Bereichen zu integrieren

Leitung und Gestaltung komplexer, sich vera¨ndernder Arbeits- oder Lernkontexte die neue strategische Ansa¨tze erfordern ¨ bernahme von U Verantwortung fu¨r Beitra¨ge zum Fachwissen und zur Berufspraxis und/oder fu¨r die ¨ berpru¨fung der U strategischen Leistung von Teams

(continued)

Niveau 8 Zur Erreichung von Niveau 8 erforderliche Lernergebnisse

Kenntnisse

Fertigkeiten

Kompetenz

Spitzenkenntnisse in einem Arbeits- oder Lernbereich und an der Schnittstelle zwischen verschiedenen Bereichen

Die am weitesten entwickelten und spezialisierten Fertigkeiten und Methoden, einschließlich Synthese und Evaluierung, zur Lo¨sung zentraler Fragestellungen in den Bereichen Forschung und/oder Innovation und zur Erweiterung oder Neudefinition vorhandener Kenntnisse oder beruflicher Praxis

Namhafte Autorita¨t, Innovationsfa¨higkeit, Selbststa¨ndigkeit, wissenschaftliche und berufliche Integrita¨t und nachhaltiges Engagement bei der Entwicklung neuer Ideen oder Verfahren in fu¨hrenden Arbeits- oder Lernkontexten, einschließlich der Forschung

About the authors Michaela Brockmann is a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Westminster, London. She is currently working on the Nuffield-funded study “Cross-national equivalence of qualifications and skills” which examines key concepts underpinning vocational education and training systems across Europe. She is a member of the Core Group of the Nuffield 14-19 Review of Education in England. Recent publications include “Knowledge, skills, competence: European divergences in vocational education and training (VET): the English, German and Dutch cases”, Oxford Review of Education, Vol. 34 No. 5, (with L. Clarke and C. Winch). Linda Clarke is Professor of European Industrial Relations in the Westminster Business School, University of Westminster and has long experience of comparative research on training and skills, as well as on recruitment, wage relations, social protection, gender and labour organisation in a range of European countries, east and west. She has particular expertise in the construction sector in Europe and is on the board of the European Institute for Construction Labour Research. Her recent research projects include: a Nuffield Foundation project on Cross-national equivalence of vocational skills and qualifications in Germany, France and the Netherlands and an European Commission Framework 5 project, Overcoming marginalisation: structural obstacles and openings to integration in strongly segregated sectors, examining gender and ethnic minority participation in the ICT, construction, printing and health sectors. Linda’s key book publications include: (2007), Vocational Education: International Approaches, Developments and Systems, co-editor, Routledge; and (1992) Building Capitalism: Historical Change and the Labour Process in the Production of the Built Environment, Routledge. Christopher Winch is Professor of Educational Philosophy and Policy in the Department of Education and Professional Studies at King’s College, London. He is, with Linda Clarke, co-director on the Nuffield Project on EQF and transnational vocational qualifications. His interests lie in Philosophy of Education, Education Policy and Vocational Education. He recently edited, with Linda Clarke, a collection entitled Vocational Education: International Approaches, Developments and Systems (Routledge, 2007). He is a member of the core group of the Nuffield 14-19 Review of education in England. Recent publications include Education, Autonomy and Critical Thinking (Routledge, 2005) and A Guide to Vocational Education and Training with Terry Hyland (Continuum, 2007). Christopher Winch is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected] To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Performancerelated learning

113

Table AI.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0590.htm

JEIT 32,2/3

114

European qualifications framework Weighing some pros and cons out of a French perspective Annie Bouder Centre d’Etudes et de Recherches sur les Qualifications, Marseille, France Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to question the appropriateness of a proposal for a new European Qualifications Framework. The framework has three perspectives: historical; analytical; and national. Design/methodology/approach – The approaches are diverse since the first insists on the institutional and decision-making processes at European level questioning the impact that could have on the recently formalised Open Method of Coordination. The second goes into more detailed analyses of the instrument itself and of its shortcomings both in conceptual terms and on its pragmatic ones. The last approach is a comparative one by which the French system is “benchmarked” against EQF guidelines. Findings – The main conclusion is that there is obviously a political will to question the role and the structure of qualifications in view of an economy and a society of knowledge and that research has much to contribute – on very different levels – like the three chosen for this article. Research limitations/implications – Choosing to mix three quite different approaches in one short text is an attempt to be valued since it shows the different aspects under which a so-called “neutral” instrument needs to be regarded. Practical implications – Practically, this speaks for the further involvement of research in the present, very institutional and organisational discussions on European qualifications. Originality/value – In terms of research, it is seldom that these various levels are considered together. The article proves that there is a case to do so. Keywords Qualifications, Decision making, Comparative tests, Vocational training, European directives, France Paper type Conceptual paper

Journal of European Industrial Training Vol. 32 No. 2/3, 2008 pp. 114-126 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0309-0590 DOI 10.1108/03090590810861668

Since the Lisbon summit in 2000 and its follow-up both in the “Education Training 2010” programme and in the working groups attached to the Bruges/Copenhagen process, many stakeholders of vocational training in the member states envisage that important changes could be brought to “traditional” processes and principles in their respective fields, at European but also at national levels. Levers for these changes should be new European instruments for the definition and the legibility of formal qualifications. In 2004 a proposal for the implementation of a European Qualifications Framework (EQF) was put to a Europe-wide consultation and in 2006 the same was done for a proposal designing an ECVET system (European Credits for VET). Mobilisation of stakeholders has been high and many papers, articles, comments have circulated. With this book, the editors want to bring these debates further. The contribution of this article will be at three levels: the first section contextualises the above mentioned developments in the overall “Europe-and-qualifications-history”;

with the second one, some aspects related to the proposed design for an EQF are discussed; the last section focuses on the French system looking at its potential in view of the European challenges. Part 1. Europe and qualifications: what is new? When faced with a debate placed at such a high political level, it is always useful to look back on history to help clarifying the terms of the present debate[1]. Doing so, one can see that since its inception the EC and then the EU has had to deal with the issue of qualifications. The very first Community intervention in the field dates all the way back to the Rome Treaty in 1957. Its purpose then was to eliminate barriers to the freedom of establishment and concerned, to start with, regulated professions since these may only be carried out by people having the appropriate qualification/credential. In this field, it was considered necessary to intervene through the legal compelling tool of the Directives. It obliges national Laws to comply with the set objectives, leaving the “achievement means” to national choice. However, these “achievement means” have been largely pre-defined, mostly in terms of contents and of length of the education and training programmes leading to the attribution of the qualification. While the Directive provides for the recognition of work experience (Title 2, Chapter 2), the main elements defining qualifications are “input-orientated”: content and length of learning are ultimate indicators for quality, together with the notoriety of the organisation delivering the document. The “credential” (the certificate) conveys the qualification, but based on the input-elements that it represents. As a whole, some 15 Directives concerning, with various importance, several hundreds of qualifications have been enacted, all of them being consolidated into one single one in September 2005[2]. Nowadays, the “European” obligations created by the Directive have been largely integrated by national systems. It appears somehow normal that its provisions partly influence their understanding of a qualification. Further Community incursions into the field, addressed the “correspondence of qualifications”. The operation started in 1985, under the direction of CEDEFOP. It compared the nature of the work tasks expected in the various countries from those holding a similar qualification. To this end, groups of professional experts were asked to extract these joint core contents out of their respective qualifications. With this operation, training contents are ignored: only work tasks and activity do matter (“the practical professional requirements for a vocation or a group of vocations”[3]). In the various countries, it proved that these requirements are largely dependent on the modes of work organisation, the development of technologies, the outcomes of collective bargaining and the resulting classifications: labour market orientation for the joint definition of qualifications proved to be quite difficult. The operation rose however a lot of expectations but also pretty much controversy: it has proved to be very lengthy and to bear little results at practical level. The common cores arrived had to be the “smallest common denominator” (Merle and Bertrand, 1993), giving them little meaning both for a European and for national labour markets. As it was voluntary, the operation was stopped after a few years, having concerned occupations at “qualified worker”[4] level in 19 sectors[5]. It appears that its promoters in CEDEFOP made use of the earlier lessons, to set-up in 1998 the European Forum on Transparency of Qualifications. Aiming still at making

European qualifications framework 115

JEIT 32,2/3

116

understandable to “outsiders” the content of vocational qualifications, several documents were developed by a group of experts representing social partners, national authorities in charge of education and training and researchers. These documents were gathered in a Portfolio named Europass, whose content was extended after 2002. In its December 2004 version, Europass gathers up to five kinds of documents: the European CV, the Certificate Supplement and/or the Diploma Supplement, the language passport and the Europass Traineeship certificate. Finalised as a Decision of the European Parliament and Council, it has created a legal obligation to every member states to foster its use, setting-up specific structures to this end. Qualifications and the organisation of learning pathways have also played a crucial role in the higher education area. Starting 1988, the Universities envisage a closer organisational structure, in which qualifications play a major role: Bachelor, Master and Doctorate qualifications should become the common currency, and a credit and transfer system (ECTS) should facilitate both mobility between universities and ultimately the integration of different learning environments such as work or other learning situations. In this context, qualifications are mainly related to education and training, the credit units being defined in terms of length of study time needed to acquire it. It is interesting to note that no legal text is underpinning these developments in the higher education area. The texts of the various “Communique´s” are “morally” binding, not legally. But their impact does not seem to be weakened. Motivation for higher education institutions to follow the Bologna process comes from a well understood self-interest: comparability standards, competition at European and international levels . . . Universities were the initiators of this process and the way they moved towards a joint and closer process makes them one of the precursors of the Open Method of Coordination (OMC), as it was formally adopted at the Lisbon Summit in 2000. For the time being, the most recent developments in the field of qualifications fall under this new decision-making process that provides for the cases (in terms of policy fields) when the EU institutions have no formal right to intervene, whereas member states governments do want to bring their policies closer[6]. To this end, governments state some general policy guidelines that are then detailed in more precise objectives foreseen with indicators of achievements and a calendar. When it comes to the area of qualifications, the stated goal of developing the European society towards a “knowledge society” gave rise after 2002 to the proposals for both a European Qualifications Framework (EQF) and a European system of credits for VET (ECVET)[7]. Putting the proposal for a European Qualifications Framework on the table has stirred much discussion among stakeholders in VET. The very high political relevance given to the proposal through its inclusion in the Lisbon process towards a knowledge society, and the high pressure that the OMC procedures may give rise to (in terms of evaluation and benchmarking), overcomes the fact that its legal basis is “only” a recommendation. Administrations, mostly in charge of managing national qualifications and national qualifications frameworks where they exist, have to perform “something” in the set direction. To come back to the question raised by the title of this first section “what is new?” one must say for first that EQF and ECVET add an other layer to quite a long list of

European initiatives in the field. While it is to be admitted that they are of different character and could also find their place amongst cooperation instruments between member states, it is also clear that the other initiatives will not resume. This gives a sense of “scattering” of efforts. There is however a resolute new element in the debate, that has to do with the inclusion of education, training and qualifications in the recent OMC procedure. The application of this mode of cooperation to employment policies and services (Barbier, 2004) shows how far non-legal decisions can influence organisational and structural operative modes. Apart from decision-making considerations, the launching of an EQF raises the question as to whether it will constitute a real contribution towards a knowledge society. Final answers to this issue are yet to be found. But several issues can be raised that could support one or the other kind of arguments. Some of those relate to the very instrument itself, the present EQF proposal. Others can be drawn from one national experience, the French one. Part II. The EQF as a policy guideline: some shortcomings In view of what has been presented above, the EQF intends to be an instrument that wants to set out a new perspective for the future; to do so it does need to transform but also to reject elements from the past, largely arbitrarily, expecting in this way to contribute to the irreversibility of change. It does so for example, in taking no account of previous scales of levels set-up with the different instruments described above; also, it ignores largely the incremental processes that led to the higher education framework. But there are four important issues that raise questions concerning the appropriateness of the instrument: (1) the standardisation of the concepts of “systems” and “frameworks” of qualifications and of the relations between them; (2) the deliberate choice to distance itself from training provision, relying only on certification/credentials to regulate the relations between employment and training on the labour market; (3) the disputable conception of vocational knowledge it conveys through its eight-level grid; and (4) the coexistence between this instrument and the others described above. 2.1. The imposition of a conceptual tool: the framework The distinction between systems and frameworks of qualifications seems to have taken shape gradually. It has been largely taken over from the work of the OECD. In June 2005, the working document of the European Commission “Towards a European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning” (Commission of the European Communities, 2005) defined it as follows: [. . .] a qualifications framework is an instrument for the development and classification of qualifications according to a set of criteria for levels of learning achieved. This set of criteria may be implicit in the qualifications descriptors themselves or made explicit in the form of a set of level descriptors. The scope of frameworks may be comprehensive of all learning achievement and pathways or may be confined to a particular sector, for example initial education, adult education and training or an occupational area. Some frameworks may have

European qualifications framework 117

JEIT 32,2/3

118

more design elements and a tighter structure than others; some may have a legal basis whereas others represent a consensus of views of social partners. All qualifications frameworks, however, establish a basis for improving the quality, accessibility, linkages and public or labour market recognition of qualifications within a country and internationally (Commission of the European Communities, 2005, p. 12).

This definition is word for word the same as the one to be found in the OECD (2005, p. 18) report. The OECD however adds a definition of what is to be understood with qualifications “systems”, to contrast it with the framework: Qualifications systems include all aspects of a country’s activity that result in the recognition of learning. These systems include the means of developing and operationalising national or regional policy on qualifications, institutional arrangements, quality assurance processes, assessment and awarding processes, skills recognition and other mechanisms that link education and training to the labour market and civil society. Qualifications systems may be more or less integrated and coherent. One feature of a qualifications system may be an explicit framework of qualifications (OECD, 2005a, p. 17).

Other authors have put in their own words what they have understood of what the new tool is meant to be. At the end of 2005, Michael Young (2005) recaps the distinction between system and framework: [. . .] the main features that distinguish National Qualification Frameworks from existing qualifications systems can be summarised as follows. All qualifications are described in terms of a single set of criteria, ranked on a single hierarchy of levels, classified in terms of a single set of occupational fields, described in terms of learning outcomes (that are expressed independently of the site, institution and form of pedagogy curriculum), defined in terms of elements (sometimes referred to as units or unit standards) and ascribed a volume in terms of credit expressed as notional learning hours (Young, 2005, pp. 40-41).

The proposal made by Anneke Westerhuis in 2001 was again different: The scope of a classification system for qualifications can be described using three criteria: whether or not the application and use of the system is broader than purely for the identification and regulation of curricula and diplomas of formal vocational education and training programmes; whether or not a system is a comprehensive framework, incorporating qualifications of different levels while these levels are defined in a coherent way; whether or not the system is monopolistic in the sense of comprising all obtainable qualifications and that no other system is being used (Westerhuis, 2001, p. 17). Qualifications frameworks are, by definition, reference systems. Frameworks establish relationships between teaching and learning outcomes and performances demanded by business and industry, on the one hand, and general or vocational qualifications and diplomas delivered by a given education or training system on the other (Westerhuis, 2001, p. 91).

It should be clear that the concept is far from being clarified. In the Commission definition for example, why should one distinguish frameworks that have a legal basis from those that rest on a consensus between social partners? The next developments about the French situation will show the limits of such a distinction: there exists a legal national framework in form of a Directory that has been designed and is managed with the social partners. Also, out of the OECD definitions, would a framework be such an independent and ethereal object that it would not need to face the same contingencies

as systems?: “develop and implement national and regional qualifications policies” . . . “institutional procedures, quality assurance procedures, processes for the assessment and the delivery of titles, recognition of competences”. A European framework will necessarily have to confront, solve and organise the solutions to all these issues. Will it then become a system? In these days, stakeholders in most of the member countries are being asked to apply this different conceptual tool to their usual proceedings, while its validity remains largely unclear and still argued[8]. Somehow, this adds to the sense of dispersion and the question remains of what it will bring more to the Europe of knowledge? 2.2. The links between qualifications framework and training system The European proposal for a qualifications framework insists deliberately on keeping references to education and training away from the definition of qualifications. An earlier version of the proposal still had references either to the ISCED levels or to those of the 2005 Directive. They have disappeared in the final one. The argument for such a separation is that the evaluation of individuals’ qualities should solely be made towards criteria of relevance for the labour market. This presents some important risks: . Economic analyses do question the model of a single labour market. They agree to say that nationally labour markets are already segmented, a reality that the principle of the European Directives does confirm. In these various segments, qualifications can play the role of a filter, a signal or play no role at all. . Present evolutions in work activity are marked by dematerialisation and tertiarisation. They are becoming more and more difficult to define other than thanks to the knowledge they require. . Users might be destabilised by this change in reference, even so more that no transitional key is available between former and new system. This runs a risk of diverting the tool (building despite it all, correspondences between new and old categories) or of making no use of the tool. The challenge is big to take the global labour market as the dominating reference, since it is itself very much subject to drastic changes that might become even greater in a knowledge economy. The capacity for change of vocational training systems is being largely under-estimated, privileging the labour market as the main innovating factor and increasing in this way a gap that a knowledge society should to the contrary contribute to fill. 2.3. A disputable conception of vocational knowledge The proposed eight levels of the EQF take over the familiar distinction between knowledge, know-how and know-how-to-be[9]. There have been a lot of debates around these categories and the way they relate to one another remains very formal. Then, one may suppose that the highest the level of knowledge, the more is the acquisition of skills facilitated as does the capacity of adaptation, responsibility, autonomy . . . in other words, the competence. This is largely the choice made for the EQF categories. However, it is difficult to envisage that skills and competence are independent from one another. Also, the didactics of vocations insists specifically on how skills are

European qualifications framework 119

JEIT 32,2/3

120

transformed into knowledge (Savoyant, 1996). In a way, this means that the shift from one level to the next, for each of the criteria, will remain quite small. This is reassuring concerning the workability of the EQF, while it probably implies that there might not be the need for that many levels. One might ask whether it was necessary to go through all this process to arrive at results relatively close to the present situation. Moreover, the grid does not refer to vocational fields or specialities when classing qualifications. This is, however, one of the main concern of stakeholders when they discuss the European area of qualifications[10]. Very often, they wished for qualifications directories, for discussions about needs for specialisation or for transversality, for working out common core of qualifications together with accompanying modules of specialisation. The present framework has remained voluntarily theoretical, leaving to end-users the task of filling it with their own respective technical specificities. In doing so, doesn’t it miss its stated objectives of facilitating mobility and establishing connections between qualifications to help going from one the other one? In other words, the European framework of qualifications proposes as a strong hypothesis that proximity between qualifications rather rest on their proximity of classification in a very theoretically defined hierarchical grid, than on proximity in terms of content of work activities organised in professions or in sectors. While this in itself remains largely controversial, it is worth discussing since a certain mismatch does exist between the qualification held and the occupied employment. But the existing inadequacies do not imply that anyone can work anywhere. Theoretical research has thrown light on the transferable skills specific to certain qualifications (Bruye`re and Lemistre, 2006). They are largely ignored from the EQF descriptors. 2.4. Coexistence between the European instruments As the previous section 1 has shown, the relationship between qualifications and “Europe” is a relatively unstable and moving field. EQF has been developed as a resolute new way of considering legibility between national qualifications. Several scenarios for its evolution can be envisaged, since the quality of a new instrument lies also in its capacity for tolerating others, even when they might seem overtaken or of least importance. When considering the earlier instruments presented above: . Compatibility between the EQF and the arrangements of the Directives ask for an harmonisation of the levels used by both processes. . EQF appears compatible with the development of multi-national, European standards in as far as those agree to take it into consideration in their development. . EQF can co-exist with Europass without altering its nature since qualifications are only one element of the portfolio. . EQF might however run contrary to the setting-up of sectorial or branch frameworks, especially when those have already international recognition thanks to the European social dialogue. As examples, one can consider qualifications in the field of transports or of sports that have their own regulations for recognition and for progression based on a worldwide relevance. Since 2004 the situation has evolved and much experimentation is on their way that will or not comfort the feasibility for an EQF. As for now, it appears important to

accept that the contradictions and hesitations described above reflect a reality still in construction that does have contradictions and hesitations. In periods of change, clarity is difficult to gain. But will it be change or agitation? Questions remain as to why it was necessary to launch both the EQF and the ECVET in the name of the knowledge society? Being purposefully polemic, it seems that they would rather prove being important steps towards a European market for awarding and accrediting bodies! But to come back to sensible arguments, it is to be regretted that national systems have not been more trusted in their capacity to adjust to new developments. The following short example of the French system is meant to give insights into what could be relied upon to construct the changes. Part III. French ways and European guidelines Since several years, the French system of national qualifications functions according to principles and models that are very close to those recommended at European level[11]. It should therefore be expected to have reached several of the objectives set to the EQF. Some issues will be raised showing that this is obviously not always so and that it needs to be reflected. 3.1. Complying ahead of time? Since the beginning of the 1970s the French system has worked towards: . the setting-up of a national framework of qualifications that integrates general and vocational education, initial and continuing training; and . a definition of qualifications through standards of occupations expressed in terms of learning outcomes and relying on “competences” to describe these learning outcomes. This process has been taking place in a context in which since the 1950s the “schooling” of learning was favoured: whereas at that time vocational learning mainly took place on the job, it was then progressively transferred to the schools, aiming in doing so at an evolution towards a parity of esteem between the two tracks, general and vocational education. A recurrent debate followed through: are vocational education and training primarily an answer to the immediate needs of the economy or do they participate of a more general objective to build both the worker and the citizen? On several occasion in its history, the French system has decided for the latter. Its national qualifications are organised with this perspective. For example, they are designed so as to allow for both further education and entrance to the labour market. The main instrument that served as a spine for what was to become a national framework has been the scale of qualifications levels defined in 1969 by the body in charge of planning the economy[12]. Its launching was meant to help a better match between education and training for young people and the recruitments needs of the economy. It concerned therefore qualifications of initial VET. These needs were defined with a certain distance from the immediate, observable needs and more in terms of “desirable” ones. A couple of years later, when the Law organising the right to further vocational training for employees was passed (1971) it could have given rise to a parallel totally different system for validating qualifications. This did not happen and in the name of

European qualifications framework 121

JEIT 32,2/3

122

equal dignity, qualifications delivered by both systems were put in correspondence to one another and validated thanks to the same scale of levels and fields of economic activity. A specific commission was set-up in 1972, which was in charge of the accreditation of those qualifications[13] that were not delivered by the Ministry of Education. Progressively since then, qualifications from initial and continuing general and vocational training have been organised in a joint national framework structured around this scale of levels. In 2002, the National Accreditation Commission (CTH) was replaced by the National Commission for Vocational Qualifications[14], which increased the unification of the system in two ways: (1) in enforcing the accreditation of prior experience (APE); it became conditional for a qualification wanting to be included in the national framework to provide for an APE procedure; and (2) in opening the framework to the sectors’ qualifications (CQP[15]) that are designed and managed by the social partners of the economic sectors. These developments devote an increasing importance to qualifications/credentials. They cease being the end product of a training/teaching process to become the mirror of the individual competences. But this is not only thanks to the existence of a national framework. Of as much importance is the designing mode of these qualifications, outcome orientated and competence based. With the creation in 1985 of the Baccalaure´at Professionnel (vocational baccalaureate) a new engineering method to design qualifications was implemented, the activity-based terms of reference (re´fe´rentiels d’activite´), that are possible cousins of the outcome orientation of the EQF. For the first time the learning potential of work situations was very officially recognised and validated: compulsory learning periods in enterprise became parts of the final assessment towards the qualification. Culturally, an important step was taken. This new engineering method was extended to all vocational qualifications concerning both initial and continuing training. Nowadays, qualifications wanting to be included in the national framework must prove that they have been designed by a special commission where social partners have agreed on the occupational profile at which the qualification is targeted, with the help of an activity-based term of reference (re´fe´rentiel d’activite´). To design these terms of reference it is not referred to the activities of a beginner, but to a larger occupational target taking account of foreseeable development and adaptation processes. Together with the “re´fe´rentiels d’activite´” was introduced the notion of “competence”. The former relates qualifications to the production process of goods or services while the latter reflects the particular input of individuals in this process. Definitions of competence are many but when they refer to training and qualifications they always include elements of contextualisation for its implementation as well as of distinction between three components: knowledge, know-how and know-how-to-be. In the French frames-of-reference competences are spelled out from the list of tasks belonging to the activity profile of the qualification. They are used to work out both the assessment referential and the training curriculum. The similarities with the EQF and the ECVET concept are quite obvious.

3.2. Compliance does not do it There is therefore a range of arguments showing how European recommendations are already reflected in the French system. Since it dates back to some years now, a short overview of some of its results could nurture the European debate on these issues. Several of these results are extensively developed elsewhere[16]. They concern the way in which frameworks do or not support a shift from a system led by training offer to one led by the demand of the economy; how they do or not increase the coherence of national systems; and how they do or not increase legibility for users. For the sake of this article, we will leave these arguments out and will mention only a few others, likewise important. While they do reflect the French situation, the following statements would need to be argued in more details. It is, however, sometimes useful to be relatively categorical: The French framework includes general as well as vocational qualifications and this comprehensive approach encouraged at European level is meant to generate mobility between qualifications as well as parity of esteem between both. The observation of young people’s “careers” in the French education and training system shows that those wanting to change to the general tracks from the vocational ones encounter many difficulties as they suffer from a lack of knowledge-based background. Despite all efforts made to formally organise the parity of esteem, the vocational tracks are mainly chosen by those pupils who do not perform well in general education. The “elite” building remains with the general or technological tracks, not with the vocational. The French framework provides for the possibility with a vocational Baccalaure´at to enter higher education and therefore Universities. Those who chose to do so encounter great many difficulties and most of them fail completing. While all qualifications may be obtained through continuing training it is only a very tiny part of continuing training activities that aim at qualifications. Moreover, take-up of continuing training benefit more to those with highest qualifications than to others. On the other hand, the accreditation of prior experience is developing very fast and benefits largely those without any qualifications. But it is not so much the existence of the national framework that supports this evolution than the activity based frames of reference.

What has been described above is a homemade (in France) recipe. It shows that there is a long way “between the fork and the mouth” that is to say between advocating principles, implementing NQF or EQF and reach the set objectives. Formalisation of frameworks will not do it, it will take more than that and this is where the different national contexts do matter. Despite the shortcomings of the instruments put on the European table (EQF and ECVET), the discussions they stir are a good occasion to discuss all of these issues. As long as the political agenda provides for time to do so . . . Notes 1. A more detailed and encompassing article on the same subject will next be published in the fourth European research report of CEDEFOP. 2. Directive 2005/36, published in the Community Official Journal L255 from 30 September 2005, p. 22. 3. Community Official Journal L199 from 31 July 1985. 4. ISCED 2 level.

European qualifications framework 123

JEIT 32,2/3

124

5. The corresponding qualifications profiles have been published in the EC-Official Journal. 6. More details and analyses of the OMC can be found in Georgopoulos (2005). 7. Resolution of the European Council to promote the reinforcement of European cooperation in VET, from 19 December 2002. 8. For detailed comments refer to (Young, 2005) and (Tuck, 2007). 9. “Savoir-eˆtre”. 10. We refer here to the answers to the questionnaire used for the Maastricht middle-term evaluation of progress towards the Lisbon goals (cf. Leney et al., 2004). 11. More detailed developments of the following are to be found in Kirsch, J.-L. and Bouder, A. “The French system for vocational training: an unappreciated prototype?” to be published in the European Journal of Education. 12. Commissariat Ge´ne´ral du Plan. 13. The Commission Technique d’Homologation des titres et diploˆmes (CTH) – the National Accrediting Commission. 14. The Commission Nationale de Certification Professionnelle – CNCP. 15. Certificats de Qualifications Professionnelles. 16. Kirsch, J.-L. and Bouder, A. “The French system for vocational training: an unappreciated prototype?” to be published in the European Journal of Education. References Barbier, J.-C. and [with the contribution of Samba Sylla, N.] (2004), La strate´gie europe´enne pour l’emploi: gene`se, coordination communautaire et diversite´ natinale, Rapport de recherche pour la DARES, Centre d’Etudes de l’Emploi, Paris. Bruye`re, M. and Lemistre, P. (2006), “La spe´cialite´ de formation: un signal de compe´tences spe´cifiques et ge´ne´rales”, working paper, Note LIRHE 430, Toulouse. Commission of the European Communities (2005), “Towards a European qualifications framework for lifelong learning”, Commission Staff Working Document SEC (2005) 957, Brussels. Georgopoulos, T. (2005), “La Me´thode ouverte de coordination europe´enne: en attendant Godot ?”, Note de recherche No. 01/05, Institut d’Etudes Europe´ennes, Universite´ de Montre´al, Montre´al, p. l. Leney, T. (2004), Achieving the Lisbon Goal: The Contribution of VET, European Commission, Brussels. Merle, V. and Bertrand, O. (1993), “Comparabilite´ et reconnaissance des qualifications en Europe. Instruments et enjeux”, Formation Emploi, Vol. 43, pp. 41-56. OECD (2005), Moving Mountains – How Can Qualifications Systems Promote Lifelong Learning?, OECD, Paris. Savoyant, A. (1996), “Une approche cognitive de l’alternance”, Ce´req BREF No. 118, March. Tuck, R. (2007), An Introductory Guide to National Qualifications Frameworks: Conceptual and Practical Issues for Policy Makers, Skills and Employability Department, ILO, Geneva. Westerhuis, A. (2001), European Structures of Qualification Levels, Volume 1-3, CEDEFOP, Thessalonique. Young, M. (2005), “National qualifications frameworks: their feasibility for effective implementation in developing countries”, Skills Working Paper 22., International Labour Office, Geneva.

Further reading Bertrand, O. (1996), “Comparabilite´ et reconnaissance des qualifications: l’expe´rience europe´enne”, in OCDE, (Ed.) (Ed.), Qualifications et compe´tences professionnelles dans l’enseignement technique et la formation professionnelle – Evaluation et certification, OECD, Paris, pp. 73-91. Bouder, A. (2005), “La transparence des qualifications et son articulation avec la construction des diploˆmes en France et en Europe”, CPC Info 40 Le point sur . . . la formation professionnelle et la mobilite´ en Europe, MEN-DESCO, Paris, pp. 33-6. Bouder, A., Dauty, F., Kirsch, J.-L. and Lemistre, P. (2006), “Legibility of qualifications: an issue as long-standing as Europe”, in Descy, P. and Tessaring, M. (Eds), Modernising Vocational Education and Training. Fourth Report on Vocational Training Research in Europe: Background Report, CEDEFOP reference series, EUR-OP, Luxembourg. Bouder, A., Coutrot, L., Kirsch, E., Kirsch, J.-L., Paddeu, J., Savoyant, A. and Sulzer, E. (2001), “Certification and legibility of competence”, in Descy, P. and Tessaring, M. (Eds), Training in Europe, Second Report on Vocational Training Research in Europe 2000: Background Report, Vol. 2, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, pp. 169-212. Coles, M. and Oates, T. (2004), European Reference Levels for Education and Training – An Important Parameter for Promoting Credit Transfer and Mutual Trust, CEDEFOP, Thessalonique. Commissariat Ge´ne´ral du Plan – Secre´tariat d’Etat a` la Recherche (1996), Le service public en recherche. Quelle modernisation?, La Documentation franc¸aise, Paris. Confe´rence internationale du travail, 91e´me session (2003), Rapport IV Apprendre et se former pour travailler dans la socie´te´ du savoir, Bureau International du Travail, Gene`ve. Gre´mion, C. (1996), “Crise des moyens ou crise des fins ? Quelques enseignements d’un se´minaire in: Commissariat Ge´ne´ral du Plan”, in Secre´tariat d’Etat a` la Recherche (Ed.), Le service public en recherche. Quelle modernisation?, a Documentation franc¸aise, Paris, pp. 385-96. Le Mouillour, I. and Teichler, U. (2004), “Making European Credit Transfer Work – ECTS and ECVET”, Actes du symposium Construction des qualifications europe´ennes, Be´ta-Ce´req, Strasbourg, pp. 93-102. OCDE (1996), Qualifications et compe´tences professionnelles dans l’enseignement technique et la formation professionnelle – e´valuation et certification, OECD, Paris. OCDE (2005), Promouvoir la formation des adultes, OCDE, Paris. Sellin, B. (1999), “Les programmes d’e´ducation et de formation professionnelle de la CE et de l’UE de 1975 a` 1999 – e´bauche d’un bilan historique critique”, Formation Professionnelle, No. 18, septembre-de´cembre, pp. 17-28. Teissier, J. and Rose, J. (2006), “La certification, nouvel instrument de la relation formation-emploi – un enjeu franc¸ais et europe´en”, Relief 16, Ce´req, Marseille. Winterton, J., Delamare-Le Deist, F. and Stringfellow, E. (2005), Typology of Knowledge, Skills and Competences: Clarification of the Concept and Prototype, Rone´o, Toulouse. Young, M. (2003), “National qualifications frameworks: an international and comparative approach”, Journal of Education and Work, Special Issue, 3 September. Young, M. (2004), “Towards a European Qualifications Framework: Some cautionary observations”, Actes du symposium Construction des qualifications europe´ennes, Be´ta-Ce´req, Strasbourg, pp. 40-5.

European qualifications framework 125

JEIT 32,2/3

126

Corresponding author Annie Bouder was trained as a sociologist at the University of Hamburg (Germany) and completed her education with a post-graduate degree of the College of Europe in Bruges (Belgium). She joined Ce´req (the French Centre for Research on Qualifications – www. cerequation fr) in Marseille in 1992, a public centre working to both the education and labour national ministries but also for social partners, enterprises, regional governments. She is one of the Executive Officers for International Relations. Her present research interests are: qualifications, education and training regimes, iterative relationship between employment and training, knowledge creation. Annie Bouder can be contacted at: bouder@cerequation fr

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0590.htm

Towards a European qualifications framework: some cautionary observations Michael Young

Towards a qualifications framework 127

Institute of Education, London, UK Abstract Purpose – This paper aims to provide a critical analysis of the European Commission’s and the member states’ attempts to introduce a European Qualifications Framework and national frameworks respectively. Design/methodology/approach – The paper is based on a review of policies and substantive desk research in countries that have applied a qualification framework approach. Findings – The analysis shows that qualifications frameworks (QFs) are resisted partly from inertia and conservatism and partly because important educational purposes are being defended. NQF experiences suggest that hopes associated with QFs are unrealistic (e.g. accreditation of prior learning). Research limitations/implications – The paper draws mainly on conceptual and secondary analysis. In future primary empirical analysis would be desirable. Practical implications – The findings are extremely relevant to policy makers on the European and national levels. The lessons from NQFs suggest incrementalism, building blocks, supporting policies, consensus and staying as close as possible to practice are important. Originality/value – This paper is one of the few attempts to evaluate current initiatives based on prior experiences. Keywords Europe, Qualifications, Vocational training, New Zealand, South Africa Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction A recent CEDEFOP paper concluded that: The creation of a European Qualifications Framework is essential to . . . improv(ing) the quality of vocational education and training . . . and for further developments in transparency, recognition of qualifications, credit transfer systems and quality assurance.

A number of things can be noted about these goals for a European Qualifications Framework (EQF): . They are very similar to those found in proposals for national frameworks. . Although there have been many proposals for NQFs, no fully comprehensive national frameworks yet exist. . All attempts to implement an NQF have been faced with considerable difficulties. . NQFs have been the subject of considerable debate. They have been criticised as being part of neo-liberal and market oriented approaches to the economy, for having an instrumentalist view of educational policy and for, undermining some of the most basic educational goals.

Journal of European Industrial Training Vol. 32 No. 2/3, 2008 pp. 127-137 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0309-0590 DOI 10.1108/03090590810861677

JEIT 32,2/3

128

What is striking about the recent proposals for NQFs is that while they have borrowed from earlier examples, none have explicitly considered the actual experience of introducing an NQF. As a result the difficulties faced by the first phase NQFs have by and large been reproduced in the second phase. These observations form the background to the rest of my paper. The paper is based on two assumptions. First, I start by accepting the long-term goals of a Europe-wide qualifications framework as summarised in the CEDEFOP document (CEDEFOP, 2004). Second, I argue that implementing an EQF will inevitably face the same problems, but in an exaggerated form, that have been faced by countries introducing NQFs. It follows that unless lessons are learned from the experience of introducing national frameworks, a Europe-wide qualifications framework will get similarly bogged down in jargon, bureaucracy and even active opposition and stands no chance of achieving its goals. What then are the assumptions made by NQFs that have created such difficulties? And how might an EQF strategy avoid or at least minimise them? 2. What is distinctive about a qualifications framework? The main features that distinguish National Qualification Frameworks from existing qualification systems can be summarised as follows: All qualifications are: . described in terms of a single set of criteria; . ranked on a single hierarchy of levels; . classified in terms of a single set of occupational fields; . described in terms of learning outcomes (that are expressed independently of the site, institution and form of pedagogy or curriculum); . defined in terms of elements (sometimes referred to as units or unit standards); and . ascribed a volume in terms of credit expressed as notional learning hours. Not all NQFs have adopted all these criteria. However, they provide the basis for claiming that, in principle, an NQF allows qualifications to be: . achieved by accumulation over time (credit accumulation and transfer); . transportable – units of one qualification can be used for other qualifications; and . transparent – learners know precisely what learning outcomes they are required to demonstrate. It is these features that make clear the sharp differences between NQFs and most existing qualification systems. I find it useful to express the differences in terms of a tension between two pairs of principles. The Principle of Difference and the Principle of Equivalence and the Principle of Inputs and the Principle of Outcomes. Existing qualification systems are organised around the principles of equivalence and inputs. They assume that different qualifications (e.g academic and vocational, university and non-university, and vocational qualifications for different occupational sectors) relate to fundamentally different types of learning and the acquisition of

different types of knowledge. Furthermore they will differ in the extent to which they depend on periods of study (in a college, a school or a university) following specific syllabuses and periods of work experience (as in work-based vocational qualifications). In contrast, qualification frameworks give priority to stipulating that all qualifications have similar features and that outcomes can be separated from the way in which they are achieved. The issue of validation or accreditation of informal or experiential learning highlights the problems of applying the Principle of Equivalence to qualifications. No one doubts the importance of the informal learning. However, assuming that common criteria can be identified for recognising formal and informal learning creates a number of problems. If the criteria stress evidence of codified or disciplinary knowledge, validation of informal learning will in most cases be impossible. If, however, criteria emphasise practical problem solving in specific contexts it will be treating the knowledge component of vocational competence as less important at a time when the knowledge economy thesis argues it should be more not less important. A further problem is that in accrediting informal learning in its own terms denies the learner access to the knowledge he/she is likely to need to progress to further or higher education. These differences between existing qualification systems and qualification frameworks are not small. They imply different notions of learning and knowledge, of expertise and experience, and different approaches to assessment. One example of the difference is that outcomes stress general criteria of achievement or performance whereas input approaches stress knowledge content. The point here is that given these differences, it is not surprising that implementing NQFs has come up against difficulties. 3. The variability of NQFs One important finding from comparative research on NQFs is how much they vary. There is no one model. Some are more and some less prescriptive; some put more emphasise on regulation, others on guidance and mapping; some are comprehensive, others partial (including only some types of qualifications); some are based on whole qualifications and some on the units that make up qualifications. The differences reflect in part the starting point, in part the prevailing philosophy of the government, in part the primary purpose of the framework and in part the relative power of the state vis-a`-vis the private sector. There is a tension between strong and weak frameworks. The former offer better guarantees about portability and transferability but are likely to face the biggest implementation problems. Frameworks of communication (sometimes described as “enabling frameworks”) and regulatory frameworks This distinction refers to the different goals or purposes that an NQF is designed to achieve rather than its strength (or its capacity to achieve these goals). All NQFs have a “communication” role, in the sense that they provide a map of qualifications; they give some indication of progression routes between levels and, at least in principle, across sectors. The “communication” potential of an NQF means that at a minimum it can assist both learners and those involved in career and training guidance in making choices. For this reason frameworks with this more limited role can be described as “enabling frameworks” to distinguish them from frameworks with a more overt regulatory role. Because enabling frameworks rely on agreement and their level of prescription is low,

Towards a qualifications framework 129

JEIT 32,2/3

130

they are far less problematic to introduce[1]. On the other hand, with very limited prescription, the potential use of a framework is also limited; its success in achieving its goals depends entirely on voluntary cooperation. No sanctions are imposed on the providers of qualifications who do not comply with common design criteria. As a result, with a limit to its communication role, many of the old barriers to progression are likely to continue. Likewise, qualifications outside the framework can still continue to be used. Weak and strong frameworks This distinction refers to the “strength” or the capacity of a framework to achieve the goals set out by government. It is best understood in terms of the features of a framework referred to in section 2. It refers both to the number of criteria that are listed in defining a framework and the degree of prescription that is used. It allows us to distinguish between strong frameworks like the NVQ framework in the UK[2], the NZQF New Zealand, as well as the NQF being developed in South Africa. In strong frameworks strict requirements are laid down for including a qualification on the framework, whereas in weak frameworks the requirements are less demanding[3]. Again, the Australian framework (the AQF) is an example of a weak (or loose) framework. Governments tend to want to move towards strong frameworks as they provide greater potential leverage both in relations to coordination and accountability. However, the stronger the framework, the less likely it will be to achieve agreement, and for the framework to be able to include a wide diversity of learning needs. Partial and comprehensive frameworks This distinction refers to the scope of an NQF and is a recognition that only in some countries does the NQF include all qualifications that are available. Scope may refer to: . Qualification type – e.g. academic or vocational or those that are publicly or privately owned. . Qualification level – many NQFs exclude university qualifications, and there are countries like england which have specific frameworks limited to higher education qualifications. . Qualification sector – a framework could be specific to one occupational sector (for example, engineering), as in many cases in Latin America countries (Vargas, 2005). It could also be developed by a subnational region, especially in a country with a federal government. Unit-based and qualification-based frameworks NQFs vary in terms of how qualifications are registered on the framework. The starting assumption, shared by most initial proposals or NQFs, is that qualifications should be unit-based; in other words the learning outcomes assumed to be necessary for a particular qualification are divided up into their basic elements or units. This process of unitization draws on a familiar analytical type of methodology and derives from the functional analysis that was common to much occupational psychology in the USA (Callaghan, 1962). The idea is that this approach to qualification design maximizes flexibility and choice for learners and employers to put together units in ways that suit their interests. In practice, the unitization model has created as many problems as it solves. Employers and employees (or students) invariably have different interests and the latter

frequently lack the knowledge to make reliable choices. As a result the NQFs in both New Zealand and South Africa have moved away from registering units and the NQF is increasingly based on whole qualifications with only limited opportunities for learners to choose individual units. However, despite the trend to whole qualifications-based frameworks, the idea of unitization remains extremely attractive to policy-makers as the recent proposals by the QCA (2004) in England indicate. The variability among NQFs has, I suspect, important implications for the kind of EQF that might be developed. 4. What problems have NQFs faced? They can usefully be divided into three types; political, administrative and educational. (1) Political problems have arisen from the fact that responsibility for an NQF is not easily located within one government Department. The Departments of Education, Labour and Industry and Trade are likely to be involved and may have different agendas on how an NQF should develop. Inter-departmental tensions have caused particular and as yet unresolved difficulties in implementing an NQF in South Africa and various types of compromise have been proposed. In the case of New Zealand, the body responsible for the NZQF, (the NZQA) was itself seen as having too much power relative to the Department of Education especially in the politically sensitive area of the school curriculum. This almost led to the collapse of the whole initiative. This was avoided by power over the school curriculum and general qualifications being returned from the NZQA to the Department. The decision to develop distinct academic “achievement standards” for the school curriculum in New Zealand were based on their own criteria (Philipps, 2003); in other words there was a recognition that the principle of similarity could not be extended to all types of learning and some differentiation was necessary. A broader political lesson from the New Zealand case is that the more an NQF seeks to be comprehensive the more it can pose a threat to the very government departments which launched it. (2) Administrative problems are expressed in the proliferation of new agencies and committees concerned with quality assurance, standard setting and assessment that NQFs invariably generate. Ambiguity and uncertainty about the responsibilities of these new agencies is almost inevitable. Bureaucratic procedures for the registration of qualifications can easily become a substitute for a more direct focus on quality and the assessment of specific skills and knowledge and generate a lack of confidence in the new qualifications. In the worst cases it leads to little more than ritual compliance with NQF criteria and what has become known in the UK as “box ticking” by providers of qualifications. (3) Educational problems in the sense used here refer primarily to issues concerning assessment. pedagogy and curriculum. In traditional systems assessment takes the form of setting and marking examinations. NQF assessment involves both the training of assessors to apply criteria to diverse sources of evidence and the training of verifiers to check comparability of assessor judgements. Research has suggested that both processes are fraught with difficulties.

Towards a qualifications framework 131

JEIT 32,2/3

132

In relation to curriculum, in most systems teachers rely on syllabuses; However, in NQF-type frameworks have the difficult task of converting outcomes into teaching programmes. Again, research has demonstrated that the reliable generation of a syllabus from occupational standards is almost impossible. Furthermore, a new language of standards, units and levels has to be developed to describe what is common about the outcomes of very different qualifications. This “standards” or “outcomes” language is inevitably experienced as jargon by vocational specialists and who find it difficult to relate the new terms to the skills and knowledge with which they are familiar. A general point that applies to all the difficulties faced in introducing NQFs is that in an outcomes-based framework the processes involved such as standard setting inevitably lose contact with the practices of those involved in teaching, training, selecting and assessing. This separation poses real problems because the processes involved (such as standard setting) rely on trust but have been separated from the very practices on which the trust would need to be based. 5. What can we learn from the success stories? I want to mention four features of what I identify as NQF “success stories” (Scotland, New Zealand, and Ireland). The term success must be treated with caution. None of these NQFs are without problems: New Zealand has the oldest NQF but, as mentioned earlier, it almost collapsed after the first five years; Ireland is still in the early stages of implementation (Granville, 2003); Scotland has an NQF (the SCQF), but one which still operates largely as two separate frameworks for HE and the rest of education and training. Raffe (2003) indicates that for all the progress in developing the Scottish NQF, its future is by no means guaranteed; it has up to now relied on establishing, and not going beyond, a wide stakeholder consensus. As he points out, this consensus could be threatened if either the government decided to link the SCQF to funding, or a stronger regulatory element was introduced in a top down way. With these reservations in mind, Scotland, New Zealand and Ireland provide valuable insights into the implementation process which no country thinking about introducing an NQF can afford to ignore. Although the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF) postdates the NZQF, its forerunner the National Certificate Framework for vocational qualifications (Raffe, 2003) remains in many ways the “parent” framework which other countries look to – taking features which they like and sometimes neglecting the lessons that can be learned. Selective interpretations and borrowing have been an understandable, though highly problematic, feature of the spread of NQFs. The most significant lesson from the Scottish experience is the importance of continuity and building on past experience. The SCQF was not a single radical innovation and a “break from the past”, but a development which built upon a succession of “partial” framework innovations. These were the 16 þ Action Plan for non academic learners, the reform of Higher National Diplomas for those seeking to progress to higher education via a vocational route, the Credit Accumulation and Transfer scheme (SCOTCAT) for linking higher education in different institutions and the Higher Still reform of upper secondary education. In other words, many of the building blocks for a comprehensive NQF were in place before the SCQF was launched. Three general features of the Scottish approach to implementation are worth

mentioning. First, it was an incrementalist approach. An important aspect of Scottish incrementalism has been the long time sequence (at least 15 years) that led to the SCQF involving a series of linked reforms. This has meant that the introduction of the SCQF has not involved any complex standard-setting procedures, or the development of new qualifications. Second, the Scottish approach has recognized the importance of what Raffe (2003) refers to as policy breadth; this meant that the introduction of the SCQF depended on a number of other changes such as staff development programmes that had nothing directly to do with the NCQF itself, but which it depended on. Third, what stands out as distinctive about the Scottish case is that in its later stages, the SCQF developments were led by universities. As a result and unlike New Zealand and South Africa, the SCQF has generated no great cleavages and more important still, has not been associated only with slow learners and low achievers. Fourth, most of the “work” involved in establishing the SCQF has involved a range of different organizations that have been willing to collaborate with each other without losing their own autonomy. As a result the SCQF has no bureaucracy. It was therefore almost impossible for the SCQF to take on a life of its own. The second “success story”, the NZQA, is a very different case with very different lessons. When it was first established it was undoubtedly the most comprehensive example of an NQF. Like other NQFs, the roots of the NZQF can be found in behavioural learning theory and in the neo-liberal economics that was popular in the 1980s. Unlike the early development of an outcome-based framework in Scotland which began as an attempt to reform the vocational curriculum for lower achieving 16 year olds, it was economic factors that drove the introduction of the NZQF (Phillips, 2003). Not surprisingly, this led to a very different kind of framework and a very different strategy to that adopted in Scotland. Instead of starting with a specific problem, the New Zealand policy-makers started with a grand design; only later did they find that the grand design had to be “rolled back”. An important lesson from the New Zealand example is the political nature of any NQF, especially in cases where a new and powerful national organization such as a national qualifications authority is established (in this case the NZQA). Furthermore, early developments were characterized by head-on confrontations between the NZQA and its opponents in the schools and universities. This led to significant compromises and the recognition of the specific needs of different sectors. The New Zealand case brings out the key stakeholder role of upper secondary schools in any system of education and training as a result of their role in providing access to the universities. One evaluation of the NZQF (Phillips, 2003) suggested that the gains (in terms of opening opportunities for disadvantaged young people) are significant, but more modest, than the ambitious goals with which it began. The Irish NQF is one of the most recent and shares a number of common features with other national frameworks. Like others, it is based on outcomes and qualifications are defined independently of any specific sites of learning. On the other hand, it was not initially based on units and credit and its remit does not include schools or universities. Like other frameworks, its origins lie in the expanding (and in Ireland relatively new) and increasingly differentiated vocational, further and adult education sectors. In its policy process, the Irish framework also has similarities with the development of the SCQF in Scotland. It is incrementalist; it builds on previous developments and its introduction has been consultative, not directive. It is clear that

Towards a qualifications framework 133

JEIT 32,2/3

134

there has been an attempt in Ireland to strike a balance between being too weak and hence not stimulating innovation, and being over-prescriptive and hence undermining local initiative. The Irish NQF has the clear intention of promoting a broad view of lifelong learning and includes learning to learn and insight in its definition of learning outcomes. The Irish NQF does not represent a dramatic break with the past. It seems to reflect a consensual approach that works in a society with a relatively small and well educated population without fundamental inequalities or large political cleavages. There are some general implementation principles that emerge from these three cases which minimize the conflict and antagonism that has been a feature of NQF reform. It stresses incrementalism, consensus and compromise, necessary building blocks and policy breadth. I will comment briefly on each of these points. An incremental approach The countries that have tried to make a radical one-off break with their previous qualifications systems have had the most acute difficulties. A radical break gives neither practitioners nor other stakeholders any bench marks to test the new ideas about outcomes and levels against their experience. Incremental approaches minimise the likelihood that polarised positions are established. Consensus and compromise Consensus is the bedrock of trust and all qualifications depend on trust between providers and users that is built up over time. Qualifications always claim to represent more than they can demonstrate and therefore can only work on the basis of trust. This is the important point stressed in the CEDEFOP paper by Mike Coles and Tim Oates on Zones of Mutual Trust. What I do not think they emphasise enough is the time and experience that is required to develop trust in new criteria such as level descriptors that go beyond experience. Genuine consultation processes such as those that have been a feature of the Irish NQF are crucial and a principled compromise such as that reached over the relations between the upper secondary schools and universities and the NQF in the New Zealand case are important. A less satisfactory alternative is the pragmatic compromise typified by the experience of NVQs in England when the original design was subject to successive small modifications. This may have contributed to the idea of an NQF losing public and professional credibility. As a result, and despite being one of the earliest countries to introduce a vocational qualification framework, England is still a long way from a broader national framework. Building blocks Scotland demonstrates very well the importance of the building blocks of a framework being in place. Only when there were separate frameworks for upper secondary schools, vocational education and universities in place was the overarching Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework introduced. It was the existence of these “building blocks” that established both the confidence in and the practicality of a broader more comprehensive framework.

Supporting policies Qualifications frameworks are sometimes seen as separate instruments of education reform which will themselves ensure portability, transparency and quality. The lessons from the successful countries such as Scotland, New Zealand, Ireland and to a lesser extent Australia is that an NQF is only one element in what must be a much broader strategy that includes staff and curriculum development, a review of funding, institutional improvement and developing a new assessment infrastructure. In the case of an EQF staff development in European languages is likely to be a crucial supporting policy. 6. Implications for a European Qualifications Framework I have concentrated on the experience of national rather than international qualifications frameworks for a number of reasons. First, there is very little actual experience of the latter. Second, likely models for an EQF appear to be based on existing NQF models. Third, it seems inconceivable that an EQF could be developed other than on the basis of existiing or emerging National Qualifications Frameworks. The Interim Report Education and Training 2010, comments that progress nationally among member states is rather slow. This slow progress reflects two important realities. First, it refers to the very real difficulties that I have referred to and the radical nature of the changes involved. Second, it arises from the fact that, as far as I am aware, not all EU countries have adopted what I refer to as a qualifications-led approach to the reform of education and training. Many of the countries in continental Europe follow what I have described elsewhere as an institution-led approach to reform, where qualifications are not treated as separate policy instruments. It is by no means clear that a qualifications-led approach is superior to the latter in promoting higher quality VET. What therefore can we conclude from the NQF experience? It is important to recognise that the emphasis on outcomes in NQFs derives via competence-based approaches to VET, from industrial models for measuring the quality of products. However education and even VET is not a product in that sense. VET and education generally, involves processes of teaching and learning and the acquisition of skills and knowledge. It is invariably associated with periods of institution-based study and work experience. The focus on outcomes independently of their institutional context must therefore be treated with great caution. Either it will become over-prescriptive like the UK’s NVQs and be resisted or it will be vacuous and undermine the trust and credibility that a new EQF needs. 7. Four final points Purposes and type An EQF is unlikely to be able to follow a strongly prescriptive model, given the power of national systems. It is likely to have an enabling more than a regulatory role and need to build on cross national experience of shared practice. In that sense it has to recognise that it is an important but relatively weak reform instrument at least on its own.

Towards a qualifications framework 135

JEIT 32,2/3

136

Overcoming problems Qualifications frameworks are resisted partly from inertia and conservatism and partly because important educational purposes are being defended. The problems of curriculum, teaching and learning and assessment are real and not easily addressed by qualifications alone. They will be overcome only if they are taken seriously. It is creating new opportunities for cross-sector and multi-disciplinary programmes that will establish the trust in the common levels and criteria that a more flexible framework needs. Links to institutions The primary rationale for an NQF or an EQF that separates qualifications from educational institutions is so that it can accredit non-formal or informal learning. The NQF experience suggests that this is an unrealistic hope. A far more realistic approach is to link institutions to informal learners through supporting alternative access programmes. It is difficult to see who would value qualifications achieved by accreditation alone. The policy priority that arises from the logic of the knowledge economy is not to accredit existing informal learning but to use that informal learning to provide new forms of progression into further and higher education. Implementation strategy The lessons from NQFs suggest incrementalism, building blocks, supporting policies, consensus and staying as close as possible to practice are important. This inevitably means it will be a slower process than the Commission appears to hope when it argues that an EQF should be established by 2005. Work can begin on an Europe-wide level but the framework design operation should not rush ahead of the trust and new practices on which the framework must be based. If the new EQF moves too far from practice it will inevitably repeat the problems of the NQFs and have many new criteria but little actual mobility or progression. Notes 1. Two senses of the term “prescription” need to be distinguished. One refers to the degree of specification required for a qualification to be registered on the framework. Typical examples are. (i) whether a qualification is required to be available via the accreditation of prior learning; and (ii) whether a qualification has to be expressed in a specific number of units to which credit is assigned. The second meaning of prescription refers to the role of the State and whether the registration of qualifications is a legal requirement. 2. However, as was mentioned earlier, while the NVQ framework was strong in terms of its requirements, government did not make it a legal requirement for all those using or providing qualifications. 3. The term weak is not used in an evaluative sense and for this reason some people have found the distinction between tight and loose frameworks more useful. It is important to stress that my typology of frameworks is itself open to debate and discussion. The only question is whether it is useful in clarifying issues. References Callaghan, R. (1962), Education and the Cult of Efficiency, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

CEDEFOP (2004), European Reference Levels for Education and Training – An Important Parameter for Promoting Credit Transfer and Mutual Trust, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. Granville, G. (2003), “‘Stop making sense’: chaos and coherence in the formulation of the Irish qualifications framework”, Journal of Education and Work, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 259-70. Phillips, D. (2003), “Lessons from the New Zealand qualifications framework”, Journal of Education and Work, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 289-304. QCA (2004), Thinking on Reform, Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, London. Raffe, D. (2003), “‘Simplicity itself’: the creation of the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework”, Journal of Education and Work, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 239-57. Vargas, F.Z. (2005), Key Competencies and Lifelong Learning: Three Perspectives on these Subjects in Latin America and the Caribbean, Skills and Employability Department/CINTERFOR, ILO, Montevideo. About the author Michael Young joined the Institute of Education’s staff in 1967 as Lecturer in Sociology of Education. In 1998 the University conferred on Michael Young the title of Professor. On his retirement from his full-time post in September 1999, Michael Young became a member of the Lifelong Learning Group. Since October 2001 he has been Emeritus Professor of Education. Michael Young can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Towards a qualifications framework 137

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0590.htm

JEIT 32,2/3

138

Professional competence as a benchmark for a European space of vocational education and training Philipp Grollmann Institute of Technology & Education, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany Abstract Purpose – The paper’s aim is to present a critical review of the current European process of co-operation in VET with a special view to the European Qualification Framework and its competence orientation. Design/methodology/approach – The approach reviews the official documentation and the consultation process and a contrastive analysis of the state of the art of research and developments in VET. Findings – In order to make European VET a direct contribution to the revised Lisbon agenda, a more concise shared vision with regard to the processes and structures of vocational education might be needed. Research limitations/implications – It does not seem possible logically and pragmatically to fully abstract from the processes in which competence is acquired and in which it is going to be used. Practical implications – Research and development activities in the European Union should be integrated towards an agenda that covers structures, conditions and processes of learning for the world of work. Originality/value – Apart from a few other contributions, critical accounts of current policies and its implications for research and practice are scarce. Keywords European legislation, Vocational training, Qualifications, Competences Paper type Conceptual paper

Journal of European Industrial Training Vol. 32 No. 2/3, 2008 pp. 138-156 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0309-0590 DOI 10.1108/03090590810861686

Introduction: Bologna, Lisbon, Copenhagen – the new commitment to European co-operation in education The commitment to European co-operation in education has increased massively in the past two years. Whilst the discussion on vocational training used to automatically defer to the subsidiarity principle outlined in the treaties of Rome and Maastricht – extolling the variety of vocational training in Europe – the Copenhagen Process heralds in a new era: . The objective of incorporating competitiveness, dynamics and innovation with simultaneous social cohesion, as outlined by the European Council’s Lisbon Strategy, provides a model for the continued development and reform of national qualification strategies along the lines of a “European Social Model” “(cf. the contributions in Grollmann et al., 2005). . The sub-policies derived from the Lisbon Strategy entail considerably more commitment than previously the case. The “open method of coordination” has been introduced as a very effective tool. This method was tested in the European employment policy, requiring the member states to agree on highly concrete key data (so called benchmarks), which have to be attained within a given timeframe (Leney, 2004).

.

A further reason for the massive interventions in comparison to the past might be traced to the experiences of success on a European level with the so-called Bologna Process. In only a short time it has been possible to introduce the two-stage Bachelor-Master model in conjunction with a credit points system within the European environment of higher education. Dispensing with a trial period, this process was advanced at a speed hitherto unknown in the history of European educational policy.

Although on the one hand the new commitment to European co-operation in vocational education is to be welcomed, the question arises as to whether the ongoing processes are sufficiently adequate for achieving the aims of the Lisbon Strategy. Copenhagen-process Within the framework of the Copenhagen Process, the ministers of education of the EU member states have agreed to re-align their vocational education policies to encompass common aims and provisions. Especially since the follow-up conference to evaluate the progress of the Copenhagen Process held under the Dutch presidency in Maastricht in December 2004, the provisions for the drafting of a European credit system for vocational education and training (ECVET) and the European qualification framework (EQF) have assumed a special significance (Europa¨ ische Kommission. Generaldirektion Bildung und Kultur, 2004). This European qualification is planned to become approved by the council and the parliament during the second half of the year 2007 and European countries are already preparing the setup of national qualification frameworks. The earlier agenda of increasing the “transparency” of VET in Europe (Sellin and Piehl, 1995) is given away to a more binding agenda. The consultation phase prescribed by the Commission, within it was possible for member states to respond to proposals presented by the Commission, expired at the end of December 2006. The proposal made by the English education authority QCA in co-operation with the Commission provides a basis for the realisation of a European vocational education area (Commission of the European Communities, 2005). At this point I would like to subject the proposal for an EQF to a critical analysis but also point out the prospects that could arise from a “competence-orientation” as it is envisaged by the EQF. We have already submitted the more fundamental orientations and procedures of the Copenhagen Process to a critical analysis at different locations (Grollmann and Ruth, 2007). First, the proposal for an EQF, the consultation process and the results (Commission of the European Communities, 2006) will be described and assessed (partly based on Grollmann and Rauner, 2004). In a second step the consequences of an orientation towards professional competences as an option for European VET policies and research will be outlined. Competence and qualification framework The development of a European qualification framework calls for: . an agreement on equal standards for qualifications and entitlements; . the recognition of competencies within the system of education and studies and vocational career development respectively, and . the configuration of transitions from one level of qualification to another and from one subject-specific or vocational domain to another.

Professional competence as a benchmark 139

JEIT 32,2/3

140

The European Qualification framework (EQF) basically differentiates between eight qualification levels. Horizontally, these levels are more closely defined by three and six qualification descriptors. After the revision of the EQF, now there are descriptors for each level on the three dimensions knowledge, skills and competencies. The use of this grid is to ascertain the educational results and pathways – whether formal of informal – during the process of lifelong learning. The EQF concept prescribes that educational results should progress from the lowest towards the highest qualification level. Someone attributed with the proficiency ascertained by a certain level must also dispose of the attributes defined by the other two dimensions and its descriptors for that particular level. The possibility that someone – like a goldsmith, for instance – may dispose of a high level of creative and artistic competence (supposedly to be categorised in the skills dimension in this grid), yet requires rather less theoretical knowledge is completely left out of the equation. Even the definition of learning as a “cumulative” process (Commission of the European Communities, 2005, p. 10) does not correspond to generally accepted concepts of educational theory and empirical learning research. Indeed, these emphasise rather the qualitative differences between different developmental levels (cf. Bransford, 2004; Eraut, 1994). This has partly been recognised through the amended proposal for the council and the parliament (Commission of the European Communities, 2006). Within the consultation process the European Commission had raised, amongst other things, two questions – the answers to which will determine the future of the framework: (1) Does the structure of the European Qualification Framework, described by the reference levels reflect the complexity of life-long learning? (2) Do the descriptors define the levels of learning progress and the differences between different levels? Of course, when evaluating these two questions one must take account of the fact that the process of life-long learning takes place in different professions, (occupational) domains and vocational fields, and that within their careers some people attain successive qualification levels, but may also change profession or vocational field. Either way, the vocationally determined structures of work and the related vocational training are of crucial importance. The structure of lifelong learning and its outcomes Regarding the learning levels – or better, qualification levels – two aspects have to be differentiated. First, clarification is required concerning whether qualification levels can be aligned on a gradually increasing scale when they are supposed to be representing the gradual development of competence. Ultimately, such a synchronicity of development in various competence areas puts into question the multi-dimensionality of the framework itself. By logical consequence this provokes the question whether it might be possible to describe the competence levels on the basis of a single factor. This would be close to suggesting that “general intelligence” should become the crucial characteristic for the attribution of competence levels. The critique of the general intelligence concept and the often inferred correlation with psychologically defined and measurable intelligence and the social and professional status highlights the ethical explosiveness that lies at the core of the conceptual design

of the EQF (Carson, 2001). When considering a comparison between the vocational career of a tradesman who runs a small business in the crafts industry, and a graduate with a bachelor degree who has been taught the scientific fundamentals of his subject area, it becomes clear that both learning “pathways” and their “outcomes” are very hard to incorporate within a single, ultimately one-dimensional EQF-grid. Above all, it begs the question as to who should benefit from such a classification. With the examination for master craftsman diploma the master tradesman (owner) has generally completed a pathway that encompasses the following stages: . secondary school leaving certificate; . vocational training in the dual system; . several years of professional experience as well as; . the gradual assumption of managerial tasks in the business; . part-time preparation for the examination for master craftsman diploma; and . examination for master craftsman diploma (on average at the age of 30). After graduating from school, a three-year Bachelor’s degree generally provides the foundation for a subsequent master’s. Simultaneously, internships convey vocational competences. The classification of graduates from such degree courses is complicated by the fact that degrees in further education prepare for a vocational career path, but do not provide vocational skills such as those provided by the training of skilled workers and master craftsmen, for instance. We could estimate that graduates from a Bachelor’s degree require a further two years to familiarise themselves with vocational tasks (i.e. the usual trainee programmes). If a graduate with a Bachelor’s degree wanted to pursue a master craftsman career, he would practically have to start from scratch if he has no previous vocational training. Parts of his theoretical knowledge could certainly apply to the new career. This would be no different for the master craftsman wanting to embark on an academic degree. More generally, this means that “knowledge” acquired during one’s learning pathway is by no means necessarily the knowledge required for a different pathway. Whilst a subject-specific degree course conveys the closely defined fundamental scientific knowledge and methods of that particular field, the master craftsman must have a command of comprehensive expertise, entrepreneurial, practical and educational competences, which might be in big parts rather acquired through work experiences than in formalised learning processes. Levels of learning or levels of hierarchy and remuneration at work? The second part of the question relating to the meaningfulness of an eight-level qualification framework for the ranking of educational progress first requires clarification of the useful purpose this ranking of competences seeks to fulfil. When considering an educational system which aims at the support of the development of vocational competence, then, depending on the perspective employed, three levels become apparent: (1) skilled personnel on the level of qualified employees and specialised workers; (2) operative professionals; and (3) strategic professionals.

Professional competence as a benchmark 141

JEIT 32,2/3

142

This is also supported by modern labour market classifications such as the Canadian National occupational Classification (NOC) or the American O *Net database of occupations. The NOC even sates that on the upper end of the scale: Management occupations are not assigned to a skill level category. Factors other than education and training (e.g. previous experience), ownership of real property and capital, ownership of intellectual property, inherent decision-making skills and organisational capabilities are often more significant determinants for employment in management occupations (Human Resources Development Canada, 2006).

A differentiation in a higher number of levels such as proposed by the EQF most probably results from the multitude of educational qualifications to be found in Europe. In the reality of qualification frameworks the ordering of qualifications often resembles a “sandwich” – principle, where general or academic degrees are enclosing the more applied or vocational qualifications usually culminating in the highest scientific postgraduate degree (cf. the examples in Coles et al., 2007; New Zealand Qualifications Authority, 2005). In reality the logic of “meritocracy” with its bias on academic achievements (Young, 1958) has found entrance into a system which aims at the abandonment of such bias (see also Guile, 2003). If interpreted as a way of structuring work large number of levels often corresponds to rather Tayloristic forms of work organisation (Drexel, 2005). This surely can not be in the interest of the European Commission, which postulates a Europe of “more and better jobs” and a knowldege-based economy (Europa¨ischer Rat, 2000). In an alternative proposal (see annex of this special edition) made by researchers from the Institute Technology and Education we have distinguished between four levels of qualifications. Each of the levels could be reached through a more experience-based learning pathway and a more academically oriented learning pathway but they are recognised equally in one framework. A special qualification level for unskilled or semi-skilled does seem of much added value. Job-market research categorises approximately 10 percent of those in employment as unskilled or semi-skilled, tendency falling. A standardisation of the extremely different competences on the level of unskilled and semi-skilled workers is hardly possible. On the one hand, the area of the unskilled and semi-skilled encompasses “everyman’s” qualifications as well as on the other hand the great diversity of extremely job-specific qualification profiles. Very often, these jobs fall victim to streamlining or rationalisation measures. On the other hand, these everyman-qualifications do not entail any specific knowledge or skill. Interim summary – competence and qualification frameworks A linear grading concept does not depict the reality of vocational career paths and lifelong learning across different areas and domains of learning. Related degrees (e.g. natural sciences) in formal learning settings might be comparable in terms of their content as it might be the case for experiences made in work-based learning settings across similar work environments. It seems as if the question of similarity in content is mixed with equivalence. It is an extremely desirable goal to make the transition from one learning pathway into another as uncomplicated and effective as possible. However, the objectively required knowledge in its widest sense for a transition between different careers cannot be simply waived aside by means of orientation to a one-dimensional grid. If a mason wishes to become a banker because the demand for masons is reduced on the labour market, he has to learn the new profession from

scratch. If he wishes to enrol for a degree, the college or department will check if he fulfils all the relevant requirements. Even the extensive competencies of a “master” are of little relevance for academic studies and cannot count as such. In practice it would already represent a big step if the master craftsman were to have general access to higher education. Equally, the competences acquired by a graduate from a master’s degree in shipbuilding is not comparable to the breadth and depth of expertise and skill required for a ship’s captain on the high seas. Without the relevant expertise it becomes impossible to appreciate which educational level is to be ranked higher: that of the experienced captain who is first allowed to command a ship at the age of 35, or that of a graduate from a Master’s degree who goes on to submit a doctoral thesis on the speciality of hydrodynamics. Discrepancies, for instance in remuneration, are just as relevant to competencies as are other factors born from their learning biographies. It seems impossible to incorporate both learning paths in a manner that would do justice to one person’s scientific competences and the other’s theoretical and practical competences. Of course, rankings of levels can be structured with many more competency levels than three. This is particularly apparent in tariff agreements and respective remuneration rankings. It would be exceedingly difficult, though, to translate classification criteria for wage agreements into valid criteria for the determination of training and educational levels in accordance with the individual courses of learning. Finally, the differentiation of competence levels according to the above mentioned three qualification categories simplifies company structuring, which since the 1980s and under pressure from international quality competition has called for the introduction of flat hierarchies. Competence and learning outcomes: an example for the Lisbon-Copenhagen dilemma Some of the abovementioned issues have been addressed within the consultation period. All in all the process can be described as a disenchantment. The purpose of the EQF is described now as a: [. . .] neutral [sic!] reference point for comparing qualifications across different education and training systems and to strengthen co-operation and mutual trust between the relevant stakeholders. This will increase transparency, facilitate the transfer and use of qualifications across different education and training systems and levels (Commission of the European Communities, 2006, p. 3).

It can be questioned if it can be a “neutral” reference point at all. The decision to introduce national qualification frameworks shows that the “neutrality” will have its limitations, since members states will make use of the EQF as a practical “reference point” within the construction of their frameworks. Despite the neutrality the EQF brings with it manifest repercussions for the design of national qualifications systems. E.g. in Germany the EQF discourse and process can be used in order to enforce certain issues which have been on the agenda for a long time, but could not get accepted against opposition from major stakeholders such as two-year occupations or modularisation (see Martens and Wolf, 2006; Weymann and Martens, 2005 for other examples of this use of international organisations influence on national educational policy).

Professional competence as a benchmark 143

JEIT 32,2/3

144

A good example to illustrate the process of disenchantment is the sections on “competence” in the two documents from 2005 to 2006 (cf. Table I). In the proposal made through the Commission significant emphasis was paid to competence as the major category of describing and assessing learning outcomes. Competence was seen as an integrated concept of abilities enabling learners to cope with certain challenges in particular contexts. In the final proposal to the parliament and the council what remains is largely a description of the range of responsibilities and scope for decision-making. The concept in use on the original proposal could be categorised as having a strong subjective orientation, whilst the remaining concept largely describes workplaces and some of their attributes. In this last section of this article I will defend taking up the subjective orientation again, but less as a concept which can be fully and operationally used in a mechanism of accrediting equivalencies and similarities, than more as an aspiration and a benchmark for national and sectoral policies of education and training the workers in a Europe in line with the Lisbon goals. Professional competence as a benchmark and a way out of the Lisbon-Copenhagen-dilemma It could be shown in the preceding section that attempts to achieve better comparability of qualifications by means of instruments such as a qualification framework are always connected with a permeation of national competencies in educational policy. The claim of being “neutral” cannot be sustained (see also the contribution of Winch and Bouder in this edition). Ultimately, the non-neutrality of Competence in the proposal to the parliament and Competence in the staff working document of the the council (Commission of the European Communities, 2006, pp. 16-7) European Commission (2005, p. 11)

Table I. The development of the use of “competence” in the EQF

Based on the examination of published literature from France, the United Kingdom, Germany and the United States of America, the following composite definition of competence is offered. Competence includes: i) cognitive competence involving the use of theory and concepts, as well as informal tacit knowledge gained experientially; ii) functional competence (skills or know-how), those things that a person should be able to do when they are functioning in a given area of work, learning or social activity; iii) personal competence involving knowing how to conduct oneself in a specific situation; and iv) ethical competence involving the possession of certain personal and professional values. [. . .] This understanding of competences will be reflected in the EQF reference levels described in this document where a distinction will be made between knowledge (reflecting element (i) of the above definition), skills (reflecting element (ii) of the above definition and, finally, wider competences (reflecting elements (iii) and (iv) of the above definition)

“Competence” means the proven ability to use knowledge, skills and personal, social and/or methodological abilities, in work or study situations and in professional and/or personal development. In the European Qualifications Framework, competence is described in terms of responsibility and autonomy

such frameworks rests with some of the natural features of learning. The framework in its current form tries to separate the learning process from its outcomes. It seems to be illogical to make this distinction since there are no starting or ending points of a learning process as such (apart from birth and death). Human beings learn constantly and do not just stop learning, as if they were finished or complete. The content of this learning might be deemed useful or detrimental. This is basically dependent on the subject of evaluating the content and results learning (might be the individual itself, a teacher, a societal institution such as an examination board, a psychologist interested in the “nature” of learning etc.). When doing this evaluation based on certain criterions considerations will be playing a role implicitly or explicitly what could have been learned at all after a certain process. This will entail certain ideas about the context of learning. For example, you would not assume the ability to swim from someone who has never jumped himself or been tossed into water. That context is a fundamental variable in shaping learning apart from individual dispositions has been stressed by several approaches looking at the situatedness of learning and cognition (Brown et al., 1989; Lave and Wenger, 1991) In that regard, the emphasis on competence as a learning outcome could be turned into a useful and stimulating concept giving direction to the European dialogue on VET and its development on a European scale. This dialogue would have to focus around the nature of professional competence as an educational end and the conditions for its development and use at work, i.e. the learning processes. In this section a strategy which puts “professional competence” at its centre will be discussed in its consequences for the European VET agenda. First some remarks will be made on the macro-level of such considerations. VET as a feature of a European tradition of education and the labour market Lower secondary education constitutes an important interface across the variety of educational systems in the worlds, because after this phase students are usually sorted into different streams or leave school. Despite all criticism the OECD-PISA study has managed to become an important benchmark and indicator for the achievements of educational systems at this level. The feasibility of the PISA study and the legitimacy of such indicators is based on the wide international consensus about what such systems have to achieve and on a longstanding tradition of test development. It is one the main features of PISA as opposed to earlier studies that it is oriented towards “competence”. In terms of quality criterions it could be formulated that curricular validity was exchanged against ecological validity. The tests in use are based on the assumption that the challenges faced by adolescents in modern societies are similar and can be described in the individual ability to solve certain problems that can be arranged according to domains such as mathematical literacy, reading and writing literacy and so on. Two conditions are of importance with regard to its successful implementation: a long-lasting history of such large-scale tests in the academic domains, which provides test items that have been tested and improved over years and a corresponding educational-didactical discussion about learning goals in certain domains or subjects. It is exceedingly more complex to achieve consensus about performance and achievement indicators across countries after this level of educational systems, before which there exists a more or less universal “world-curriculum”.

Professional competence as a benchmark 145

JEIT 32,2/3

146

In this section the argument will be maintained that it would be a worthwhile effort to develop a strategy which supports the development of a coherent occupational or professional competence since it is in principle backed up by common European traditions, is justifiable in light of the Lisbon strategy and goes in line with what we know tentatively about learning in settings other than schools. Different educational traditions are competing with each other and put emphasis on different concepts of competence. However a strong vocational education route constitutes a common feature of the majority of European systems of education. Based on the work in the Maastricht-Study we can point out certain potentials for linking up national policies and practices as regards to a VET policy aiming at professional competence. This relates to the process and conditions of its development as well as to the outcomes that can be achieved but also to some macro-conditions of vocational education in the European member states. First, it is a common feature of many educational systems in Europe that a significant portion of learners in secondary education is enrolled into vocational education programmes. In 25 countries the share of students of an age-cohort enrolled into vocational education programmes exceeds 30 percent and in 16 members states the share exceeds 50 percent (Leney and The Leney, 2005, p. 28). A strong vocational route in the educational system constitutes a common European tradition. Increasingly, targeting education and learning to occupational and professional profiles is also seen as an option for higher education (West, 2000). Comparisons show that this can produce favourable labour market outcomes in terms of the Lisbon Agenda (Brzinsky-Fay, 2007; Leuze, 2007). i.e. smooth transitions from school/university to work that avoid youth unemployment (one of the priority benchmarks in the process Education 2010). Very broadly clustered two ways of looking at competences can be distinguished in secondary education, mainly associated with the respective historical configuration of the educational system its relation to the labour market. Anglo-saxon models of education lay their main emphasis on rather generic competencies that finally enable students to make their way on the labour market and in higher education. Competencies are seen as a generic cognitive resource. In many European countries the concept of a direct relationship between and education and the labour market goes in hand with a notion of competence that sees competence as “domain-specific”. Competence, then, is a cognitive resource that can be applied to a number of similar situations (e.g. in an occupation). For the former model the importance of specific context or work processes in which the learning takes place or to which it is geared to is emphasised. Real-work experiences are then a vital component of vocational education, leading to occupational competences stemming from learners engagement with occupational ‘core problems (Onstenk, 2000). Some competences, for example, cannot be learnt in school-based settings, since they are bound to the specific environment and constraints of work in a specific field (Figure 1). As an intentional enterprise VET as part of public education is not only shaped by the needs and demands of production and human resource development, but embedded into the contexts of general education and citizenship. Thus, VET also presupposes some normative orientations such as educating responsible citizens that can participate in and contribute to economic and societal change and success. In many countries this also reflected in regulatory statements for VET that can for example be found as parts or preambles of VET legislation. For instance the Dutch country report in the project “Achieving the Lisbon goal” stated that:

Professional competence as a benchmark 147

Figure 1. Concepts of VET and competence

[. . .] two things are essential: Competence based education is explicitly aimed at the key issues or problems in professions and careers, and prepares the learner to deal with them; the accent is put on an optimal competence development of the learners, tailored to their personal wishes and possibilities. The aim of competence-based education is to train people to become competent citizens and professionals. Competences and competence development are the pivot around which content, programming, organisation and pedagogic-didactical design of the educational process should be developed.

The table provides an idealised view of conceptions of competence development and education. In the table, educational ends lie on the continuum between liberal education and targeted vocational or technical instruction (the horizontal axis). “Pure” liberal education aims at the development of the cultured and educated person/citizen and targeted vocational or technical instruction aims at the development of the qualified worker. The vertical axis is a continuum ranging from adaptive and reproductive ways of learning towards innovative and proactive orientations to learning processes. Looking at a the emerging quadrants of the matrix we find four types of competence: (1) An adaptive competence building favouring learning contents primarily derived from external (technological and labour market) demands and focusing on qualified workers rather than on educated citizens. (2) An explanatory knowledge and competence, emerging as a result of adaptive competence building and an orientation towards the educated citizen. (3) An emphasis on innovative and proactive competence formation, combined with an orientation towards the qualified, specialist worker. This is often associated with the characteristics of high performance work systems.

JEIT 32,2/3

148

(4) Finally, the orientation towards innovative and active workers (learners) in combination with the educated citizen perspective results in a reflective shaping competence. It can be argued that different European systems place emphasis on different parts of the matrix. An example on the European level, fitting into the two upper quadrants is the European occupational profile “Car-Mechatronic”, combining sophisticated technical, service and business competences. Whether the implementation of the profile tends more towards “participative human resource development” or “reflective shaping competence” depends mainly on the national way of organising the connection between IVET and CVT. “Reflective shaping competence” is a goal that is pursued in many VET systems, that locate VET in the secondary educational system but that is not always achieved. Despite the differences illustrated in this section there seem to be sufficient commonalities within the variety of VET-Systems in Europe to carry out a discussion on such strategic orientations. In addition, it is a big task for research to develop an understanding how vocational competences develop and what circumstances influence their growing. The structures and content of competence – a big task for research and development It is only with difficulty that the dimensions at the core of the EQF could be assigned to the theories and concepts of competence research (see also Haahr and Hansen, 2006). E.g. since the reform of large occupational fields at the end of the 1980s, the traditional division into “knowledge” and “skills” shared by the planning and research of vocational training in Germany, has been abandoned in favour of the “qualifications” category. This was to support vocational education that would emphasise the relaying of practical vocational competences. This entailed among other things the concept of “comprehensive work activity” (vollsta¨ndige Arbeitshandlung, Hacker, 1998) as a full “feedback circle” (Miller et al., 1973). From this perspective a renewed division of professional competence (qualification) into knowledge and skills would spell a qualitative step backwards for vocational education (Table II). The term qualifications is used because the usual way of developing vocational training regulations is rather based on an “objectivist” conception of work processes instead of profiles of vocational competences that are built on the subjective basis of coping with the tasks and challenges of work. Terminological accuracy is needed in this regard, since there is a longstanding discussion on the different terms for quite some time in different research traditions (Erpenbeck and Rosenstiel, 2003; Hartig and Klieme, 2006) that is partly backed up by empirical research. As the table shows competence in this understanding is an intermediate concept between an objectivist view on tasks and the abilities needed in order to fulfil this task (qualifications) and a fully subjectivist view on individual intelligence as a stable and more or less unmodifiable cognitive resource. The draft of the EQF was strongly driven by such notion of competence whereas the current version has turned back to a description of competence by the degree of autonomy, i.e. a more objectivist feature. However, the current version is not fully consistent in this more qualification driven perspective since it still mentions “knowledge, skills and personal, social and/or methodological abilities” as major dimensions. Those dimensions are closely rooted in curricular input considerations and the structuring of learning content (Reetz, 1999; Roth, 1971). They are not necessarily empirically valid accounts of the structure of professional competences in domains of skilful work. Since “autonomy” is now the

Qualification

Competence

Intelligence

Derived from tasks and challenges in work situations

Individual abilities to solve certain problems in specific situations and contexts

Generalisable, ability to solve “new” problems in any context

Can be adjusted through changing the organisation and distribution of work

Can be learned in formal settings Stable trait, determined to a or through experience (with such large extent by biophysical specific situations and contexts) potentials over time

Structure is mainly subject to the way work is organised

Structure is mainly subject to intra-individual ways of organising cognitive resources

Often broken down into a large Coherence between subjective number of tasks abilities and cognitive resources and external challenges

Professional competence as a benchmark 149

Structure is subject to general cognitive processes One-dimensional, few dimensions

Industrial sociology, work science

Vocational and work psychology Differential cognitive and educational research; HRD psychology

Descriptions, task and job analysis, etc.

Methodological vacuum

Psychometric testing

major descriptor for the achieved level within the EQF, the respective hierarchy of work organisation gets much more weight then the actual ability or disposition of someone to cope with tasks on a specific level of job performance. Research would be needed in order to find out systematically about the specific challenges and tasks in domains of work as well as about the development of the individual dispositions to cope with such challenges. For the concept of intelligence, Howard Gardner points to the roles and professions respected in different cultures, such as hunter, farmer, shaman, psychiatrist, sportsmen, artists and scientists. The attempt to trace the variegated capabilities embodied in these roles and professions to a universal intelligence does not do justice to the variety of capabilities that people may possess or acquire (Gardner, 1993). This critique can even more be applied to the use of a “universal” term of competence, since competence in the cognitive psychological does not even presuppose a bio-physical potential, as it is claimed by Gardner and his colleagues for their notion of multiple intelligence. Competence as opposed to intelligence can be acquired, whereas intelligence by definition remains more or less stable. If, in accordance with Gardner, a multiple notion of intelligence is applied, it becomes obvious that individual competence profiles can only be adequately represented if they are conceived multi-dimensionally. Competence profiles can be described in analogy to tasks and situations within the corresponding image or profile of a profession. Competence in this regard is an intermediate concept between individual cognitive resources and the challenges in the outer world the individual has to cope with (Connell et al., 2003). In empirical educational research competence would be described as a as an individual disposition that can be acquired by processes of formal learning and through experiences and that puts the individual into the position to solve problems and tasks in a specific domain (Hartig and Klieme, 2006). Up to now this concept has not sufficiently found entrance into research on professional and vocational

Table II. The concepts qualification, competence and intelligence

JEIT 32,2/3

competence development. A research agenda looking at this concept of vocational competence would take a close look at the knowledge and skills dimensions on which those processes could be described (Fischer, 2000), the different stages this process would go through (Eraut, 1994), the methodologies how this can be identified and assessed (Stenstro¨m and Laine, 2006a, b) and the conditions under which vocational competence can develop.

150 Conditions for the development of competence and its use There is an ongoing debate among industrial sociologists on the polarity between a trend to an increasing taylorisation of work on the one hand and an increasing complexity of job-profiles on the other hand. The diagnosis of a renaissance of Taylorisation (Springer, 1999) stands vis-a`-vis the emergence of new work systems that are labelled as “high-performance work systems”: The core of a high-performance work system (HPWS) . . . is that work is organised to permit front-line workers to participate in decisions that alter organisational routines. This may be achieved by using shop-floor production teams or through employee participation in problem solving or quality improvement teams and statistical process control. Workers in an HPWS experience greater autonomy over their job tasks and methods of work and have higher levels of communication about work matters with other workers, managers, experts . . . and, in some instances, with vendors or customers. Work organisation practices in an HPWS require front-line workers to gather information, process it, and act on it (Appelbaum et al., 2000, pp. 7-8).

In a global context of high economic competition it is difficult to make projections about the relative strengths of the two polar trends. However, based on the findings of European studies on the development of national systems of developing qualifications and vocational education as well as based on insights on learning in work processes, some desirable initiatives of research and development can be outlined. Increasingly, no matter if in systems with a strong vocational tradition of systems with a traditional academic orientation, work experiences are integrated formally into the upper-secondary and post-secondary curricula (Griffiths and Guile, 2004; Leney and The Lisbon-to-Copenhagen-to-Maastricht Consortium Partners, 2005, p. 122). In a recent report for the European Commission features of workplaces providing learning opportunities have been identified. The report also postulates instruments and tools to be developed by European initiatives in order to tap the potentials for learning at work through integrating work and education. According to the report such instruments should help to secure for the following elements: The completeness of a job. A complete/holistic job offers learning opportunities because it allows workers to prepare and support work autonomously. The number of short-cycle tasks in a job. Acquiring occupational qualifications requires that the job has a variety of tasks that belong to this occupation. Difficulty. A confrontation with problems is a prerogative for an opportunity to learn. Autonomy, or ‘regulation capacities’ in a job. Contact opportunities. Social contacts allow one to learn from others and to solve difficulties together with others and learn from these solutions. It thereby allows for the development of social-communicative qualifications.

Organisational tasks. Insight into the functional interdependence between workers in organisations helps to reveal the innovative potential of workers. Information supply. Without information and feedback on one’s own work it is difficult to learn from work and mistakes made (Huys et al., 2005, p. 5).

Other studies come to similar conclusions with regard to learning in work processes (Boreham et al., 2002; Eraut, 2004; Skule and Reichborn, 2002). Competence-building processes are often highly contextualised and vary with sectors, business processes and use of technologies. In this respect, the contribution of VET to the development of of competences in the workplace is highly context dependent. In this regard VET can be seen as a partly independent variable that has to be taken into account as a variable shaping work processes. On the other hand, the way work is being organised is a crucial feature, which needs to be taken into account when looking at the possibilities of development of competences within work processes. In addition to a purely company and production-based view of competence building there is also a societal and macro-economic level that is important to consider. Research of a Danish group of researchers has found that there is a close connection between how people work and learn in a country and the way firms’ innovate. Discretion in organising individual work and job profiles and work that involves problem-solving and learning correlates positively with a type of innovation labelled as “endogenous” innovation. Interestingly, other forms of work enrichment do not correlate positively with this type of innovation, but are rather associated with incremental innovation, such as for example in Japan (Arundel et al., 2006). Conclusions It is hoped that this contribution has achieved the following goals: . Illustrate the dilemma in which the current process of European co-operation in VET is by the example of the development of EQF and the use of the term competence in particular. . Pointing out a possible way out of this dilemma by sketching a strategy focussing on the development of professional competence as point of orientation fro European VET research, development and policy. . Indicating what further steps would be required in order to implement a strategy that is conducive to developing professional competence as a benchmark for VET on its different levels of realisation. The “Lisbon-Copenhagen-dilemma” and competence The commitment to European co-operation in education has increased massively in the past two years in contrast to earlier attempts to co-ordinate European education and training policies. Main elements of this new agenda of co-operation are the so-called “open method of coordination” and the proposal for introducing a European Qualification Framework (EQF). The priority benchmarks of the strategy Education and Training 2010 constitute and interesting way of formalising objectives between member states without interfering to strongly into national educational policies. They can be seen as a way of managing European co-operation in Education and Training “by objectives”.

Professional competence as a benchmark 151

JEIT 32,2/3

152

However, the indicators being in use as priority benchmarks do provide only relatively weak signals with regard to the question of effectiveness of VET structures and outcomes of the member states (see also Lauterbach in this issue). The European Qualification Framework is closer to the content of VET. Based on a several expertises a sophisticated concept of professional competence found entrance into the discussion on the establishment of a European Qualification Framework. This had to suffer from the partly incoherent way of using the term between different languages, disciplines and research approaches. In the meantime more emphasis is put on the term “learning outcomes”, since this appears to be less sophisticated than competence. The emphatic use of the competence concept is given away to a pragmatic version that equals competence with responsibility and autonomy at work. Many of the aspirations embodied in the earlier proposals of the EQF have been abandoned in the most recent version pointing to a political compromise. In substance the EQF has moved back into the direction of an objectivist conception of qualifications and former policies of transparency. All in all the aspirations of the EQF have been moderated throughout the consultation phase. The use of the term competence carries major implications for individual processes of learning as well as for the organisation of work and occupational profiles. On the political level this orientation demands an extremely high co-ordination between different realms of European and national policies (employment, labour market, education and innovation) that has not been achieved, yet. This is more so the case, when trying to align VET policies with the comprehensive set of objectives formulated through the Lisbon strategy. Partly, this lack can be ascribed to constitutional features of the European Union and the way of governance those promote. Professional competence as possible way out of this dilemma and an intermediate concept between an objectivist and a subjectivist view on VET Despite those shortcomings, the general notion of introducing competence as a major hinge on which European co-operation could rest on is to be welcomed from the perspective on research and development in VET. It puts individual learning processes and the individuals’ actual capabilities at the centre of considerations on co-operation in European VET. Different traditions and strands of research provide anchors for the clarification and operationalisation of the term competence. In principle two ways of looking at it can be distinguished: one is equalling competence with observable performance, the other one conceptualises competence as an individual psychological disposition that is acquired through learning and experience and relates to limited number of situations. In both cases a linear grading concept does not depict the reality of solving tasks and coping with challenges in vocational education and the world of work. There is also doubt in how far one generic framework can actually be applied to the variety of contexts and sectors of education and work. The subjective dimensions and the graduation of levels on which such knowledge and skills are being developed would need to come under scrutiny in relation to the settings in which that learning is taking place. Another problem is there are no instruments that up to now of assessing such competences in a way that would fulfil the international standards that are set through certain recognised bodies of quality assurance (such as the “Standards for educational and psychological testing” of the American Educational Research Association, AERA).

Perspectives If it were the aim that European VET contributes directly to the reaching the objectives of the revised Lisbon agenda, then, a more concise shared vision with regard to the processes and structures of vocational education would be needed than it is in place now. This would not necessarily affect the “outcome” orientation of the current processes. However, it does not seem possible logically and pragmatically to fully abstract from the processes in which competence is acquired and in which they are going to be used. Therefore, research and development activities in the European Union should be integrated towards an agenda that covers structures, conditions and processes of learning for the world of work (professional competence). Due to the multidisciplinarity of the topic and different national research traditions there is huge body of research and amount of findings available that have not been sufficiently synthesised. A research and development programme targeted at the role of VET in reaching the Lisbon objectives would look at the structural, economic and national pre-requisites as well as the outcomes of learning processes. Professional competence and the way that it is developed would be at the heart of such initiative. Finally, this activity could have benefits on a number practical levels: such knowledge and the developed diagnostic instruments could be used by stakeholders in order to get an impression on the quality of the learning which is taking place in their environments (schools, companies etc), the real capabilities of individuals would be weight stronger than through certificates and degrees, which could enhance social and economic mobility and finally such instruments could be used in indicator based reporting activities on different levels (institutional, national, European).

References Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P. and Kalleberg, A.L. (2000), Manufacturing Advantage. Why High-Performance Work Systems Pay Off, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London. ˚ . and Valeyre, A. (2006), The Organisation of Work and Arundel, A., Lorenz, E., Lundvall, B.-A Innovative Performance: A Comparison of the EU-15 By DRUID, University of Aalborg, Aalborg. Boreham, N., Fischer, M. and Samurcay, R. (2002), Work Process Knowledge, Routledge, London. Bransford, J.D. (2004), How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, expanded ed., National Academy Press, Washington, DC. Brown, J.S., Collins, A. and Duguid, P. (1989), “Situated cognition and the culture of learning”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 1989, January-February, pp. 32-42. Brzinsky-Fay, C. (2007), “Lost in transition? Labour market entry sequences of school leavers in Europe”, European Sociological Review, p. jcm011. Carson, J. (2001), “Defining and selecting competencies: historical reflections on the case of IQ”, in Rychen, S. and Hersh Salganik, L. (Eds), Defining and Selecting Key Competencies, Hogrefe & Huber Publishers, Cambridge, MA. Coles, M. and Werquin, P. (2007), Qualifications Systems: Bridges to Lifelong Learning, Education and Training Policy, OECD, Paris. Commission of the European Communities (2005), “Commission staff working document. Towards a European qualifications framework for lifelong learning”, paper presented at the SEC (2005) 957 Conference, Brussels.

Professional competence as a benchmark 153

JEIT 32,2/3

154

Commission of the European Communities (2006), “Proposal for a recommendation of the European parliament and of the council on the establishment of the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning”, COM(2006) 479 final, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, 5. September. Connell, M.W., Sheridan, K. and Gardner, H. (2003), “On abilities and domains”, in Sternberg, R.J. and Grigorenko, E.L. (Eds), The Psychology of Abilities, Competences and Expertise, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 126-55. Drexel, I. (2005), in Jakob, M. and Kupka, P. (Eds), “Die Alternative zum Konzept des Berufs: Das Kompetenzkonzept – Intentionen und Folgeprobleme am Beispiel Frankreichs”, in Perspektiven des Berufskonzepts – die Bedeutung des Berufs fu¨r Ausbildung, Vol. 297, Erwerbsta¨tigkeit und Arbeitsmarkt, IAB, Nu¨rnberg, pp. 39-53. Eraut, M. (1994), Developing Professional Knowledge and Competence, Falmer, London. Eraut, M. (2004), “Deconstructing apprenticeship learning: what factors affect its quality?”, in Mulder, R. and Sloane, P.F.E. (Eds), New Approaches to Vocational Education in Europe: The Construction of Complex Learning-Teaching Arrangements, Symposium, Oxford, pp. 45-57. Erpenbeck, J. and Rosenstiel, L.V. (2003), Handbuch Kompetenzmessung, Scha¨ffer-Poeschel, Stuttgart. Europa¨ische Kommission. Generaldirektion Bildung und Kultur (2004), “Kommunique´ von Maastricht zu den ku¨nftigen Priorita¨ten der versta¨rkten Europa¨ischen Zusammenarbeit in der Berufsbildung”, Fortschreibung der Kopenhagener Erkla¨rung, Vol. 30, November, p. 2002. Europa¨ischer Rat (2000), Schussfolgerungen des Vorsitzes, Europa¨ischer Rat, Lissabon. Fischer, M. (2000), Von der Arbeitserfahrung zum Arbeitsprozeßwissen. Rechnergestu¨tzte Facharbeit im Kontext beruflichen Lernens, Leske & Budrich, Opladen. Gardner, H. (1993), Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, 2nd ed., Fontana Press, London. Griffiths, T. and Guile, D. (2004), Learning through Work Experience for the Knowledge Economy, CEDEFOP Reference series, Vol. 48, Office for Official Publication of the European Communities, Luxembourg. Grollmann, P. and Rauner, F. (2004), “Einheitlicher Qualifikationsrahmen im Bru¨ gge-Kopenhagen-Prozess zwischen Schulabschluss und Kompetenz”, Die berufsbildende Schule, Vol. 56 Nos 7-8, pp. 159-65. Grollmann, P. and Ruth, K. (2007), “The ‘Europeanisation’ of Vocational Education between formal policies and deliberative communication”, Research in Comparative and International Education, Vol. 4 No. 1. Grollmann, P., Kruse, W. and Rauner, F. (2005), Europa¨isierung beruflicher Bildung,, Vol. 14, Bildung und Arbeitswelt, Lit-Verlag, Mu¨nster. Guile, D. (2003), “From ‘Credentialism’ to the ‘Practice of Learning’: reconceptualising learning for the knowledge economy”, Policy Futures in Education, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 83-105. Haahr, J.H. and Hansen, M.E. (2006), Adult Skills Assessment in Europe. Feasibility Study, Danish Technological Institute, Policy and Business Analysis, Aarhus. Hacker, W. (1998), Allgemeine Arbeitspsychologie, Huber, Bern. Hartig, J. and Klieme, E. (2006), “Kompetenz und Kompetenzdiagnostik”, in Schweitzer, K. (Ed.), Leistung und Leistungsdiagnostik, Springer, Heidelberg. Human Resources Development Canada (2006), National Occupational Classification. Career Handbook, 2nd ed., Human Resources Development Canada, Ottawa.

Huys, R., De Rick, K. and Vandenbrande, T. (2005), Enhancing Learning Opportunities at Work (Hoger instituut voor de arbeid), Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Leney, T. (2004), “Reflections on the five priority benchmarks”, in Standaert, R. (Ed.), Becoming the Best. Educational Ambitions for Europe. CIDREE Yearbook, Vol. 3, CIDREE, Enschede. Leney, T. and The Lisbon-to-Copenhagen-to-Maastricht Consortium Partners (2005), Achieving the Lisbon Goal: The Contribution of VET, QCA, London, UK; BIBB, Bonn, Germany; CEREQ, Marseille, France; CINOP, The Netherlands; ISFOL, Rome, Italy; ITB, University of Bremen, Germany; National Training Fund, Prague, Czech Republic, Navigator Consulting Group and Danish Technological Institute, Athens and Denmark. Leuze, K. (2007), “What makes for a good start? Consequences of occupation-specific higher education for career mobility. Germany and Great Britain compared”, International Journal of Sociology, Vol. 37 No. 2. Martens, K. and Wolf, K.D. (2006), “Paradoxien der Neuen Staatsra¨son. Die Internationalisierung der Bildungspolitik in der EU und der OECD”, Zeitschrift fu¨r Internationale Beziehungen, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 145-76. Miller, G.A., Galanter, E., Pribram, K.H. and Aebli, H. (1973), Strategien des Handelns: Pla¨ne und Strukturen des Verhaltens, Konzepte der Humanwissenschaften, 1. Aufl edn, Klett, Stuttgart. New Zealand Qualifications Authority (2005), The New Zealand National Qualifications Framework, New Zealand Qualifications Authority, Wellington. Onstenk, J. (2000), “Training for new jobs: contents and pilot projects”, in Tessaring, M. and Descy, P. (Eds), 2nd Report on Vocational Training Research in Europe, Office for Official Publication of the European Communities, Thessaloniki. Reetz, L. (1999), “Zusammenhang von Schlu¨sselqualifikationen – Kompetenzen – Bildung”, in Tramm, T., Sembill, D., Klauser, F. and John, E.G. (Eds), Professionalisierung ¨ ffnung der Wirtschaftspa¨dagogik fu¨r die kaufma¨nnischer Berufsbildung. Beitra¨ge zur O Anforderungen des 21. Jahrhunderts. Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von Frank Achtenhagen, Peter Lang, Frankfurt, pp. 32-51. Roth, H. (1971), Pa¨dagogische Anthropologie. Bd. II Entwicklung und Erziehung, Grundlagen einer Entwicklungspa¨dagogik, Hannover. Sellin, B. and Piehl, E. (1995), “Berufliche Aus- und Weiterbildung in Europa”, in Arnold, R. and Lipsmeier, A. (Eds), Handbuch der Berufsbildung, Leske þ Budrich, Opladen, pp. 441-54. Skule, S. and Reichborn, A.N. (2002), Learning-Conducive Work. A Survey of Learning Conditions in Norwegian Workplaces, CEDEFOP Panorama series, Office for Official Publication of the European Communities, Luxembourg. Springer, R. (1999), Ru¨ckkehr zum Taylorismus, Campus, Frankfurt/New York, NY. Stenstro¨m, M.L. and Laine, K. (2006a), Quality and Practice in Assessment. New Approaches in Work-related Learning, Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyva¨skyla¨, Jyva¨skyla¨. Stenstro¨m, M.L. and Laine, K. (2006b), “Towards good practices for practice-oriented assessment in European vocational education”, Occasional Papers, Vol. 30, Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyva¨skyla¨, Jyva¨skyla¨. West, J. (2000), “Higher education and Employment: opportunities and limitations in the formation of skills in a mass higher education system”, Journal of Vocational Education and Training, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 573-88.

Professional competence as a benchmark 155

JEIT 32,2/3

Weymann, A. and Martens, K. (2005), “Bildungspolitik durch internationale Organisationen. ¨ sterreichische Zeitschrift fu¨r Entwicklung, Strategien und Bedeutung der OECD”, O Soziologie, Vol. 30 No. 4. Young, M.D. (1958), The Rise of the Meritocracy, 1870-2033. An Essay on Education and Equality, Thames & Hudson, London.

156

Further reading Rauner, F. (2004), “Zur Erforschung beruflichen Wissens und Ko¨ nnens. Was die Berufsbildungsforschung von der Expertiseforschung lernen kann”, in Jenewein, K., Knauth, P., Ro¨ben, P. and Zu¨lch, G. (Eds), Kompetenzentwicklung in Arbeitsprozessen, Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp. 75-91. About the author Philipp Grollmann is deputy head of the department on international vocational education research in the Institute Technology & Education, Bremen University. His research interests are comparative VET research, quality in VET and the professionalisation of teachers and trainers in VET. He has led and contributed to a range of significant European research projects such as the Maastricht study or the scenario study of ETF and CEDEFOP. He can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0590.htm

PART TWO: EUROPEAN DESIGN PRINCIPLES PUT INTO PRACTICE

Ways toward a European vocational education and training space: a “bottom-up” approach

Ways toward a European VET space 157

Jessica Blings and Georg Spo¨ttl Institute of Technology & Education, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany Abstract Purpose – This paper seeks to concentrate on bottom-up approaches in order to promote a European vocational education and training (VET) concept. The overall aim of this article is to demonstrate that sophisticated approaches still have a chance of becoming common practice in European countries. Design/methodology/approach – The centre of the article is the discussion of a core occupational profile called ECO-recycler, which tends to be an alternative to the discussion of a uniform European Qualification Framework. The method of participatory discourse is applied in order to shape a VET space jointly with European partners. However, the partnership should not only discuss an abstract level because the implementation of the ECO-recycler is the main target of the discourse and it will be demonstrated how it works. Findings – After the clarification of a bottom-up approach, the implementation process of a core occupational profile in the partner countries is described. Research limitations/implications – The empirical approach for the creation of work process based core occupational profiles will be offered. Practical implications – European policies must be changed if these approaches are pursued. Originality/value – This article offers an alternative to existing European policy and will be of interest to those in the field. Keywords Europe, Vocational training, Qualifications, Education and training, International politics Paper type Research paper

Introduction Since the beginning of the discussions of the European qualification framework (SEK, 2005) it is obvious at the latest that Europe is focussing at a minimum of two ways for the further differentiation of a European educational policy: a top-down approach and a bottom-up approach. The aim is the introduction of an instrument for the classification of different qualification levels in Europe into a linear, hierarchically structured framework with the objective to increase the comparability and the transparency of the graduations. The discussion of this qualification framework is manifold and will still take a lot of time. On the other hand, the alternative approach, i.e. the bottom-up perspective of the establishment of European occupational profiles has hitherto hardly been considered. It is likely that this way seems to be comparatively complicated at first sight and that it is suspected to enforce the occupation oriented approach[1]. This is, however, by no means correct. As soon as occupational profiles, qualification concepts, modules etc. below the respective systems are more closely examined it

Journal of European Industrial Training Vol. 32 No. 2/3, 2008 pp. 157-170 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0309-0590 DOI 10.1108/03090590810861695

JEIT 32,2/3

158

becomes evident that the work and work process orientation is in the centre of all “qualification and competency development concepts”. Consequently, the idea of European core occupations safeguards that those transnational work and work process orientations not interfering with existing system structures are in the centre of interest. The decisive advantage of bottom-up approaches is that an uncoupling of occupational requirements from formalised instruments – a feature of qualification frameworks – could not take place. Furthermore, those competencies could be measured which are concretely developed within the framework of training, e.g. by dealing with work processes. Approaches of a European occupational education and training policy In December 2004, the European Union confirmed in the Maastricht 2004 Declaration (Communique´ of Maastricht, 2004) to establish an increased comparability, transparency and recognition between the national educational systems. This declaration again underpinned the Copenhagen-(Bruges) Process of 2002 and specified the September 2003 declaration of the Council of Ministers in Berlin on university education. On the way towards an open, concise and comparable “vocational education and training landscape” there are currently three predominant streams (Figure 1): (1) The first approach is the realisation of comparability on the certificate level. With the provision of formal instruments, the comparability of qualification profiles should be safeguarded by mutually recognizing the certificates. (2) The second approach originates from the Copenhagen process and tries to attain transparency by awarding Credit Points (European Credit Transfer System for Educational and Vocational Training – ECVET System). This is where the controversial debate of a European qualification framework fits in. (3) The third approach is basically pursued by transnational Leonardo-da-Vinci projects supported by the European Union. With the aid of the Social Partners, sector oriented core occupational profiles are developed and implemented. The success of this approach lies in the fact that it results in transparency and comparability on the level of contents. The common denominator of the European core occupational profiles are the work processes in the countries.

Figure 1. Three ways to the mutual recognition of graduations in Europe

The so-far surveyed automotive sector and the closed loop and waste economy sector correspond at a rate of 70 to 80 per cent. This way was first shown with the European occupational profile of a “Car Mechatronic” (Rauner and Spo¨ttl, 2002), which was implemented in four countries. It was followed by a project on the closed loop and waste economy. The occupational profile resulting thereof was implemented in seven countries (Blings and Spo¨ttl, 2003). Another project is currently being carried through in the European aerospace industry. The work process as a reference value basically allows to assess the different qualitative characteristics of skilled work from country to country and from company to company and to make it the crystallisation point of core occupational profiles. If work processes are determined as “structuring common ground” of core occupational profiles it is possible to shape vocational educational and qualification processes according to country-specific institutional framework conditions by maintaining the transnational, basic core occupational structures. Generally, it is to be noted that work process oriented approaches safeguard that: [. . .] the national vocational educational training courses can be opened towards Europe and that the permeability of educational areas within and beyond the borders can be realised (Heß and Tuschner, 2003, p. 135).

The relocation of the discussion on recognition and transparency from the abstract system level to the work process has at least three further advantages: (1) One avoids the trap that due to the very different institutional framework conditions in all European countries the educational courses cannot be compared with each other. (2) The examination of work processes ensures a distinct closeness of the discussion to the labour market. Furthermore, the question of the real requirements for competency plays an important role. This facilitates to involve all persons concerned into the discussion process. (3) A process orientation clearly lessens the danger of a fragmentation of knowledge in favour of a coherence of knowledge as the foundation of a “European education space”. The second of the above mentioned advantages at the same time clearly indicates that a “bottom-up” approach can only be realized via clear sector references. With the aid of core occupational profiles and a sector reference, a work oriented European vocational education and training can develop on a high content level. Sector orientation as the basis of a “bottom-up” approach As already mentioned above, there are several first convincing approaches of European core occupational profiles with a clear-cut sector reference. The probably best known approach is the Car Mechatronic. The actual success of the Car Mechatronic concept is based on the fact that the sector reference created a high closeness to the work of world. This resulted in advantages such as: . practice orientation; . curricula structures focussing on work processes; and . experience knowledge was made the contents of learning.

Ways toward a European VET space 159

JEIT 32,2/3

160

This concept safeguards that the employees contribute subjective potentials and skills to the work process. The work process and experience orientation made the car mechatronic a comprehensive competency and personnel development concept aiming at a “reflexively acting subject”, i.e. a subject which in spite of work orientation is determined by: . internal endeavours; and . autonomously set objectives. Sector references not only allow to assess the multi-dimensional challenges of the shop-floor such as relevance of work organisation, communication structures, legal stipulations, use of tools etc. but also to define relevant profiles for core occupations and further training (Spo¨ttl, 2005). Leonardo da Vinci projects with a sector reference facilitate the cooperation with and the support by the social partners. A successful cooperation with the social partners is guaranteed and a successful dissemination of the results is the prerequisite of an overdue “European education dialogue”. Other central advantages of sector references can be named as follows: . Sector structures in industry and trade in Europe are predominantly similar and can be clearly identified. . The dynamics immanent in the sectors can be transferred to the profiles and to the level of European oriented (core) occupational profiles. . The development and the change of sectors is considerably influenced by the European legislation and other European stipulations and can thus be precisely monitored and assessed. . The challenges of similar European sectors are only slightly differing. Therefore, both sector oriented and sector spanning qualifications and competencies can be assessed and made the objects of vocational education. . Industry cultural characteristics can be taken into consideration by sector oriented competency profiles and/or occupational profiles. . The application of a system of credit points for the work process structures of a sector seems to be more successful as the attempt to improve the transparency of graduations in a general way through formalised certificate structures. . A sector oriented vocational education and training facilitates and guarantees the participation of the social partners because the orientation to their relevant work of world is in the centre of interest. . A sector oriented involvement of the Social Partners in the discussion on vocational education and training is one of the most important prerequisites for the establishment of a “European vocational educational dialogue”. . Due to its definable framework the sector approach also allows for “declinating” ambitious vocational educational goals “down” to the project level in an operationable way. The clear references of the Copenhagen Declaration to the world of work explicitly call for declaring them the core of a “European vocational educational system” in terms of a

work oriented vocational education and training. This can only be achieved with the aid of sector references, because: . the multi-dimensional challenges of the shop-floor can thus be assessed; . the relevance of the work organisation models is taken into consideration; . the corporate communication structures become a subject; . the legal regulations are introduced to vocational education and training; and . the tools, the products themselves move into the centre of vocational education and training. Contrary to the discussion on the formal comparability, the regulation of the mutual recognition and the transparency of certificates only feasible by a top-down approach, the sector orientation as a bottom-up approach is highlighted. The latter is very likely to support a conversion of national systems as the cultural framework conditions and industrial cultures of the individual societies are being considered and respected right from the start. Sector orientation always also means a concretisation of vocational education and training and the discussion of visions and wishes in terms of the necessary and the expected qualification levels in a real field of work. Even if this results in interest-guided and controversial discussions and positions, a participatory process is safeguarded which holds a great chance for a European dialogue of vocational education and training. The special importance of a “bottom-up”-strategy results from the objectives of these approaches: . Based on a contribution for the development of a European vocational education and training system. . Based on a vocational educational and labour market political answer to an economic sector that is currently establishing as a European sector. . On the one hand, based on a practice oriented (initial) education and training that on the other hand facilitates the transition to higher education in Universities of Applied Sciences and Universities. There is the uniform basis for the organisation of a cooperative education between schools and companies by a networked learning environment. . Based on a contents orientation of the core profile to work processes because it no longer supports the different industry cultural accesses. Visions of a European vocational education and training can be implemented without any conceptual dissens. . Based on an alternative for the highly segmented vocational education and training which no longer corresponds to the challenges of the world of work and which results in an abstract comparison of country specific certificates. . Based on an orientation to process thinking starting with vocational training. This entails the fact that a business process orientation has to be pursued as early as initial vocational training. . Based on a high identification with sectors.

Ways toward a European VET space 161

JEIT 32,2/3

162

Core occupational profiles are unambiguously linked to the challenges of the sectors. This is safeguarded by the fact that the exact future oriented need for qualification will be assessed by sector specific surveys by: . the identification of sectoral challenges up to the survey of the central work processes dominant in all European countries; . an orientation of the occupational profiles towards the sector specific work processes; and . encouraging a dialogue of vocational education and training with the European Social Partners. The conceptual reflections clearly point to a development of occupational profiles based on sectoral orientations because the comparable European challenges within the industrial and handicraft world of work offer the best prerequisites for the shaping of occupational profiles. The following facts underpin this position: . A great number of handicraft and industrial sectors with similar structures can be identified in the european countries and offer convincing, work oriented links for the shaping of occupational profiles. . The development of sectors is considerably influenced by the european legislation leading to a homogenisation of sectors. . The challenges on the “shop-floor-level” only differ little from country to country. they are suitable as a basis of occupational profiles. . Industry cultural differences can be taken into consideration with the aid of the work process orientation of sector related occupational profiles. . It is likely that the use of the “credit point system” for work process structures is more successful than to transfer it to highly differently organised and segmented modules and certificate structures. . An adequately high proximity of European occupational profiles to the sectors guarantees the support by sector representatives during the implementation of the system. The success of this approach depends on the fact that the needs and challenges of a sector are precisely analysed and that the concerns and the characteristics of the sectors in European countries are reflected and taken into consideration. Another important advantage of sector oriented vocational educational approaches lies in the fact that the so-called “qualitative zones” – defined according the Draft Directive 119 of the European Commission – can be equipped with occupational profiles instead of courses, modules, units etc. Thus, a considerably better quality of competency development is achieved because the idea of a vocational educational system and the creation of system structures are in the centre of interest right from the start rather than the accumulation of random modules for a (vague) entity. Implementation processes as “bottom-up strategy” A way to successfully implement work process oriented occupational profiles is shown by the project “RecyOccupation” that has prepared the implementation of the core occupational profiles for the closed loop and waste economy in seven European

countries[2]. In order to achieve this, the work process oriented European core profile of an “ECO-recycler” has to be adapted to country specific needs. In the majority of the countries this process resulted in a transformation of the existing core occupational profile “ECO-recycler” into the national vocational training plans and in its implementation (European RecyOccupation Profile Project, 2005). Thus, a qualification deficit of the branch predominant in the countries could be overcome. So-far, this young sector has no qualification profiles in the majority of the European states and the employees of the recycling and production branch had been recruited from different other occupational groups such as, e.g. mechanics, locksmiths, electricians etc. or they had been trained exclusively on-the-job. The most important work steps at the backdrop of national and regional sector conditions and country specific educational systems were the following: . interviews with key persons from trade unions, associations, institutes; . identification of national framework conditions in the sector in general and in individual enterprises; . coordination of the European core profile with national needs in all partner countries; . strengthening national implementation partnerships; and . leading the European Social Dialogue for the support of the transformations. Among the essential instruments for the implementation were the national curriculum handbooks set up within the European cooperation. These handbooks document the national, contents and structural implementation of the core occupational profile. All curriculum handbooks: . are based on the European core occupational profile; and . contain the nationally required adaptations of the contents of the core occupational profile in order to take into consideration the regional and national specific (20 to 30 per cent additional contents) as well as the industry cultural requirements (10 to 30 per cent). On the other hand, country specific handbooks were created within the European cooperation. These handbooks focus on implementation measures on the levels of the companies and schools. They contained a didactical-methodical concept, methodical-organisational implementation aids and learning arrangements for the work process oriented implementation of the core occupational profile. On the whole, 28 learn and work tasks for the training practice in companies and at school have been developed in the European context. The social partners were continuously involved in the implementation in all other countries (Figure 2). They: . supported and guided the vocational educational scientific research work with the aid of sector studies, case studies and work process studies in all countries; . advised, guided and evaluated the development core occupational profile of the “ECO-recycler”; . guided, advised and evaluated the transfer of the core occupational profile of the “ECO-recycler” in the national context; and . supported and ensured the implementation.

Ways toward a European VET space 163

JEIT 32,2/3

164

Figure 2. Seven national implementation teams formed the project group for the implementation of the core occupational profile of the “ECO-recycler”

The individual countries mainly pursued three different ways of implementation Introduction via central ministerial units: Slovenia and Greece In Slovenia and Greece the implementation of the core occupational profile was coordinated in terms of contents and organisation by the central ministerial unit for vocational education and training. Thus, the occupational profile “ECO-recycler” was directly implemented into the national training plans. In Slovenia this was a swift process and the new official occupational profiles were introduced in May 2005. In Greece the “Occupational profile of the ECO-recycler” had to be amended by contents taken from production technological occupations as the sector of the closed loop and waste economy had not yet created an adequate number of new enterprises as the introduction of the European environmental legislation would have suggested. From October 2006 on, the amended occupational profile will be coordinated by the Organisation for Vocational Education (OEEK) at the Ministry for Education and Religion. Introduction via decentralized partners In Lithuania, the Chamber of Industry and Commerce of Kaunas coordinated the implementation of the “ECO-recycler”. In spite of a vocational training system rather structured in a decentralised way and with a strong orientation towards universities, the “ECO-recycler” was successfully installed as a skilled worker training course tailored to the needs of the companies. This resulted in an occupational profile named “Waste Treatment Operator” which was filed for implementation with the Ministry of Education. In Great Britain, a Vocational College pursued the implementation work and coordinated an Advisory Board. An ECO-recycler pilot course took place at the

Vocational College from September 2004 to June 2005. By March 2006, the approval of the “ECO-recycler” as a Vocationally Related Qualification (VQR) was implemented. Introduction within the dual system by improvement of existing occupations In Austria, the vocational occupation of a skilled worker for disposal and recycling, waste and/or sewerage with a three years’ apprenticeship has been in existence since 1998. This occupation is, however, very rarely trained and it is not yet adequate to suit the needs for the closed loop and waste economy 2003. Therefore, the Austrian implementation team – after comprehensive research work – prepared the further development of the existing occupational profile by the core occupational profile of the “ECO-recycler”. On the other hand, the re-formulation of the occupational profile was prepared by the responsible institutions (basically the Ministry of Economy and the Social Partners). This results in the fact that the updated block instruction has already started in April 2006 whereas the official introduction of the new occupational profile is only planned for the autumn of 2006. In August 2002, the environmental technical occupations were newly arranged in Germany. This also includes the occupation of a skilled worker for the closed loop and waste economy which together with another three occupations replaced the former supplier and disposal specialist. Figure 3 gives an overview on the implementation process. Owing to this ordinance political background the German implementation team focused on the didactical-methodical work. The objective was to develop a didactical-methodical concept for the implementation of work process oriented training for a sustainable development on corporate level and to set up a catalogue of learn and work tasks qualitatively supporting the skilled worker training in the German sector. In Spain, the partner organisation considered the profile of the ECO-recycler as an approach for further training and implemented it. In other countries, the official introduction of the transformed core occupational profile is planned and prepared for:

Ways toward a European VET space 165

Figure 3. Political background of the implementation strategy of the German team

JEIT 32,2/3

. . .

166

Greece in October 2006; Lithuania in 2006; and Austria in September 2006.

A first concept for an ECVET recognition system based on the work process structured occupational profile was additionally established for the core occupation of the ECO-recycler in order to facilitate the transparency and the recognition between the different nationally implemented forms of the “ECO-recycler”. The implementation in Slovenia – an example of best practice A new EU member and a comparatively small country, Slovenia has carried through the implementation process in a particularly effective and quick way. It will therefore be featured in detail as an example of best practice. The implementation of the occupational profile as part of the national initial training has been taking place since 2005. The members of the Slovenian implementation team encompassed: . The centre of vocational training of the Republic of Slovenia (central ministerial unit for the shaping, the guidance and the evaluation within vocational training in Slovenia). . The Chamber of Industry and Commerce of Slovenia. . The Ministry for Environment and Building Planning. . The Sˇolski Center Novo Mesto (a vocational school in Ljubljana). . Five enterprises of the sector. As social partners the advisory board also comprised representatives of: . The Chamber of Commerce of Slovenia. . The Chamber of Industry and Commerce of Slovenia. . The free-trade organisation of Slovenia. . The Sectoral Committees for vocational training standards. . The Ministry of Work, Family and Social Affairs. . The Ministry of Environment and Building Planning. . The Ministry of Education, Science and Sport. The centre for vocational training of the republic has pursued the following tasks within the implementation team and the Advisory Board: . the translation of the core occupational profile into Slovenian language; . the transfer of the contents and the structure of the core occupational profile to the members of the implementation team and the Advisory Board; . the preparation of the first drafts for the development of an organisational structure corresponding to the requirements of the closed loop and waste economy; . the need analysis of the labour market of the closed loop and waste economy in Slovenia;

. .

the preparation of a quality development plan for the sector; and the coordination of all work within the implementation team, with the Advisory Board and of all research work done within the sector.

In order to verify the fitting of the core occupational profile in Slovenia, five case studies were carried through analysing and breaking down the main business and core work processes. In addition, the ECO-recycler core tasks were evaluated with the aid of a questionnaire survey carried out by sector experts. These surveys resulted in the introduction of the ECO-recycler profile on three levels. Four national occupational profiles for the sector emerged during this process: (1) “Eco waste sorter” (Slovenian Level 3); (2) “Waste maintainer up-keeper”/“Operator of vehicles and machines for handling waste” (Slovenian Level 4); (3) “Technologist for the closed loop and waste economy” (Slovenian Level 5); and (4) “Hazardous waste manipulator” (Slovenian Level 5). The environmental legislation of Slovenia necessitated the creation of the occupation of a “Hazardous waste manipulator” (5th level) which is only partly related to the “ECO-recycler”. The structure of the core occupational profile of the “ECO-recycler” provides training in all important business fields of the sector. Based on the vocational training standards, three “Catalogues of standards of knowledge and skills” have been created for the occupational profiles of “Eco waste sorter”, “Waste maintainer up-keeper”/“Operator of vehicles and machines for handling waste” and “Hazardous waste manipulator”. The Slovenian case will again be presented as an example case because the entire problem of dealing with different approaches becomes evident. At first sight, it seems to be a contradiction to assign a work process oriented profile to several levels. On the other hand, however, it becomes apparent that the relations with occupationality can be ensured through a work process structure and that an implementation is possible in countries with already firmly installed level hierarchies/qualification frameworks. Nevertheless, it is important for such cases that the development logical structure inherent in the work process structures is not lost during the adaptation to the different levels. In addition: . the entry qualifications were determined by the profiles; . the examination methods and criteria were defined; and . materials for examination and accreditation of the examiners were determined. Furthermore, a detailed standard was established, forming the basis for the future recognition of informally acquired knowledge and competencies. The content of the Slovenian Curriculum Handbook is structured in the following way: (1) Introduction: Objective of the publication and description of the transformation process for the implementation of the “ECO-recycler” into the national context. (2) Description of the key requirements for enterprises and employees in the closed loop and waste economy sector.

Ways toward a European VET space 167

JEIT 32,2/3

168

(3) Description of the consequences resulting from the requirements of the sector for vocational education and training. (4) Introduction to the closed loop and waste economy in Slovenia, including the legal stipulations. (5) Introduction to the national system of vocational education and training. (6) Confirmed and officially introduces “Catalogues of standards of knowledge and skills for national vocational qualifications”: “Eco waste sorter”, “Waste maintainer up-keeper”/“Operator of vehicles and machines for handling waste” and “Hazardous waste manipulator”. The curriculum handbook is meant for employees of the closed loop and waste economy (trainers and apprentices, responsible persons for personnel issues), members of the vocational training institutions as well as certification units and the political level (commissions, ministries, labour offices). The Slovenian implementation approach has been carried through on a high contents level in spite of its swiftness. This is probably one of the advantages of small countries when it comes to the shaping of vocational training: The agreements with the social partners can be achieved more rapidly and simply and the State institutions can react more efficiently. Future perspectives of bottom-up The bottom-up approach with country spanning and sector related core occupational profiles as its centre aims at the development of a “European Vocational Education and Training System”. The industry cultural differences (Component 1, Figure 4, cf. Loose, 2002) are covered with the aid of the work processes and the different requirements resulting thereof are implemented into the core occupational profiles. The orientation of the core occupational profiles to the work processes allows adapting the configurations of occupational profiles to the different system structures (Component 2) without colliding with the structures themselves (cf. preceding chapter). The work process oriented structure of the core occupational profiles can be endowed with credit points. This will facilitate to adapt this concept to the qualification framework (cf. Component 3). At the same time – and this is considered one of the most important aspects by the author – the orientation to work processes creates a new work oriented basis for curriculum development (Component 4). With the aid of work processes it is furthermore possible to cover the socially relevant dimensions of work and the subjective challenges and to take them into consideration in the training concepts (Component 5). These five components reveal the most important dimensions influencing the shaping of core occupations and making a considerable contribution to the shaping of European oriented vocational education and training structures. The basis of this is the challenges of the world of work with all its social influences which differ to a lesser extent in European countries than their vocational education and training structures. Summary The advantages of European core occupational profiles as an answer to the current demands for comparability, transparency and recognition of different national vocational education graduations in Europe are evident:

Ways toward a European VET space 169

Figure 4. Convergence of occupational concepts in Europe

.

.

The development will be realised by a “Bottom-up approach” at a national and on a European level. Social partners play a decisive role, sector experts support the shaping of contents. Sector oriented comparability, transparency and recognition can be ensured on the level of the work processes in terms of contents.

The comparability with national structures is always present as the structuring takes place on the work process level rather than on the level of the vocational training systems. It is crucial to ensure a discussion in terms of contents and quality backed up by occupational profiles. Emphasis should be given to find out which occupational profile and which qualification level is necessary for the individual sectors (Spo¨ttl, 2005). Scientists, vocational educationalists and sector representative are invited to offer the best qualitative solution. Notes 1. The occupationality approach is generally alleged to result in the exact opposite of what the European policy has in mind, i.e. not promoting flexibility, permeability, comparability etc. 2. The Leonardo-Project “RecyOccupation” developed the European core occupational profiles “ECO-recycler” for the closed loop and waste economy with six European partners in four countries (Germany, UK, Spain, and Greece) from 2000 to 2003. The project work carried out

JEIT 32,2/3

170

on the project “European RecyOccupation Profile”, carried through between 2003 and 2005, the implementation of the core occupational profiles “ECO-recycler” was prepared and started in the countries involved earlier as well as in Slovenia, Lithuania and Austria. References Blings, J. and Spo¨ttl, G. (2003), ECO-recycler – ein europa¨isches Kernberufsprofil fu¨r die Kreislaufund Abfallwirtschaft (A European core occupational profile for the closed loop and waste economy), Impuls-Reihe, Nummer 21, Nationale Agentur fu¨r Bildung in Europa beim BIBB, Flensburg. European RecyOccupation Profile Project (2005), Implementation Report – Implementierung des europa¨ischen Kernberufsprofils ECO-recycler in sieben nationalen Systemen (Implementation of the European Core Profile ECO-recycler in seven national systems), biat- Schriftenreihe Mt 20, Flensburg. ¨ ber das Wirkungspotential des Heß, E. and Tutschner, H. (2003), “Experiment und Gestaltung”, U Programmes, Vol. 18 No. 34, pp. 35-150. Kommunique´ von Maastricht (2004), Kommunique´ von Maastricht zu den ku¨nftigen Priorita¨ten der versta¨rkten Europa¨ischen Zusammenarbeit in der Berufsbildung (Fortschreibung der Kopenhagener Erkla¨rung vom 30 November 2002). Maastricht, den 14.12.2004. Loose, G. (2002), Planning Paper Dual System Project, Dual System Project, Kuala Lumpur. Rauner, F. and Spo¨ttl, G. (2002), Der Kfz-Mechatroniker – Vom Neuling zum Experten, W. Bertelsmann Verlag, Bielefeld. SEK (2005), 160: Arbeitspapier der Kommission, Beitrag zum Bericht der Kommission fu¨r die Fru¨hjahrstagung des Europa¨ischen Rates am 22. und 23. Ma¨rz 2005 u¨ber die Lissabon-Strategie zur wirtschaftlichen, sozialen und o¨kologischen Erneuerung, Bru¨ssel, den 28.1.2005. Spo¨ttl, G. (2005), “Sektoranalysen”, in Rauner, F. (Ed.), Handbuch der Berufsbildungsforschung, W. Bertelsmann Verlag, Bielefeld, pp. 112-8. About the authors Jessica Blings works for the Institute Technology and Education of the University of Bremen as a researcher and concentrates on the research emphasis of sustainability in Vocational Education and Vocational Training. She is responsible for continuing European research projects on the above mentioned issues. Jessica Blings is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected] Georg Spo¨ttl is the Director of the Institute Technology and Education and Professor at the University of Bremen. He looks back on several European research and development projects aiming at the design of curricula, the identification of skill needs in high tech-fields and the analysis of work processes in classical sectors as well as newly emerging sectors such as automotive service or recycling.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0590.htm

Putting Dreyfus into action: the European credit transfer system Jo¨rg Markowitsch and Karin Luomi-Messerer

Putting Dreyfus into action

171

3s Research Laboratory, Vienna, Austria

Matthias Becker Berufsbildungsinstitut Arbeit und Technik, Flensburg, Germany, and

Georg Spo¨ttl Institute of Technology & Education, Bremen University, Bremen, Germany Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this article is to look closely at the development of a European Credit Transfer System for Vocational Education and Training (ECVET). The European Commission, together with the member States, are working on it and several pilot projects have been initiated within the Leonardo da Vinci Programme of the European Commission. The problem of the transfer as well as a convincing transparency of vocational competences has yet been developed. The aim is to discuss this in the article. Design/methodology/approach – This contribution illustrates a model using the Dreyfus/Dreyfus approach of acquisition of profiles in such a way that the levels of competence development are not applied to overall professional actions (as shown for pilots, nurses, teachers and others), but to smaller entities of professional profiles. Findings – While strongly taking into account work related tasks and contexts (objects, tools, work organisation) the authors define “groups of competencies” and apply Dreyfus’ ladder to these new entities. That means the authors adopt Dreyfus’ model in two ways: by applying the model to groups of competencies (corresponding to specific core work profiles) instead of using it for overall competency profiles (corresponding to professionals/ experts); and they make the model flexible and dynamic by not restricting it to a certain number of levels, but only defining the differences between levels. Research/limitations/implications – The background of the paper is the so-called work process analysis to identify the work related tasks and related groups of competencies. Practical implications – The article offers a new concept for the European discussion of the Qualification Framework as well as the Credit Transfer System. Originality/value – This article provides an alternative to existing European policy. Keywords Europe, Qualifications, Competences, Vocational training Paper type Research paper

Introduction The mutual recognition of qualifications is seen as a basic requirement for increasing the mobility of vocational training and for the development of a European job market. Amongst other things[1] a system that would make it easier to combine and transfer contents of education and training and certain competencies is necessary. This is a central goal of the ”Bruges-Copenhagen Process“ wherein the EU countries have declared their willingness to strengthen cooperation in vocational education and training (VET)[2].. In the course of the process, the intention is to create a system for

Journal of European Industrial Training Vol. 32 No. 2/3, 2008 pp. 171-186 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0309-0590 DOI 10.1108/03090590810861703

JEIT 32,2/3

172

VET similar to the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS), which for years has been successfully used for student mobility in the field of higher education. In 2002, a Technical Working Group (TWG) was implemented by the European Commission in order to develop a proposal for a European credit transfer system in VET (ECVET). This working group has meanwhile presented their concepts in several papers without proposing detailed models[3]. At the same time, projects and initiatives have been promoted and they are working on the exemplary development of some kinds of credit transfer systems, especially within the framework of the Leonardo da Vinci Programme[4]. The objectives of these projects, initiatives and of the working group of the European Commission reach beyond the simple transfer of a university credit point system on vocational education and training. In order to consider the special requirements of the internationally very differing educational field, the Commission thinks that we need a system which is oriented towards the learning outcomes[5] in terms of knowledge, skills and competencies. The core idea of actual approaches is to focus on the comparability of learning results. For this purpose – the European discussions stated – learning units must be split up into small, standardised units described in the form of learning outcomes. These units of learning outcomes thus function as a kind of learning atom or molecule, i.e. small, isolatable and individually revisable units forming our learning worlds. Although this approach does not openly aim at a unification of learning processes and contents it is to be feared that it will strongly influence the latter and will thus become a universal construction set for curricula. In any case, the comprehensive aspect of competency for employed persons is neglected. Another – and not a completely different – approach, aims at considering the incomparability of training contents (due to clearly different training concepts) via the comparability of occupations and/ or work processes for which training is carried through. It is assumed that the occupational requirements in each country can be better compared than the training courses on which they are based. As, however, the persons to be trained are in the focus rather than the skilled workers who are already coping with the task profiles, the preparation of such task and competency profiles is not sufficient. If details of training courses should be underlined, also “partial profiles” must be set up albeit imbedded in a comprehensive concept. These profiles reveal two dimensions in a simple and a prevailing form: The depth and the level as well as and the width and the scope of the acquired knowledge and skills. In other words: In order to carry through a “development logical” differentiation of a competency profile (empirical or normative), a competency development model (also: competency acquisition model) is required. The following chapters will refer to the competency acquisition model of Dreyfus and Dreyfus as a basis for the further development of this approach. We like to suggest a new formulation of the core problem as a basis for the development of an ECVET system in a way that an international discussion cannot lead to misinterpretations and false estimations. How the application of the Dreyfus model shows the way to a solution and which new problems are emerging The most popular and in our case most promising model for the acquisition of competencies[6] is the model designed by Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1986a). The model

describes the competency development in five levels from the novice to the expert. In order to mark the multi-dimensionality of competency development we choose the description in Figure 1, highlighting the characterisation of situations, abilities and actions at each of these levels. Based on the competency profile of, e.g. a skilled worker (description of his/her abilities, his/her “expertise”), five development levels can be characterized which have to be run through. Each of these levels is marked by certain characteristics (kind of perception, dealing with rules etc.). If this approach is also taken into consideration during the training this leads to abandoning the specialized systematic structure of curricula in favour of the development of a logical structurisation[7]. The “analysis of work processes and work tasks in their situatedness” is crucial for an adequate description of the development

Putting Dreyfus into action

173

Figure 1. Use of the Dreyfus/Dreyfus model to characterise competency development

JEIT 32,2/3

174

levels (Rauner, 2004). This includes the descriptions of the objects of occupational work, the tools, the work organisation, the methods as well as the requirements. The application of the Dreyfus model for vocational education helps to better considering the practical knowledge central for these training courses (experience knowledge, know-how, know-that) and additionally points at didactical implications which may lead to curricula structured in a development logical way. In order to solve the initial problem, the model offers starting points for an adequate description of the development of competencies within the framework of a training course. Training specialisations and/or individual competencies may – according to the initial idea – reflect competency requirements in competency levels as soon as they maintain holistic and occupationally oriented links to work processes. In spite of this process the approach still faces some problems, which will be sketched below. a) Area of application In their dissertations, Dreyfus and Dreyfus refer to the process of competency acquisition of airplane pilots, chess players, vehicle drivers and adults learning a second foreign language. The case of the airplane pilots is the only case of a classical occupation. The three other cases just deal with certain abilities with a relevance for every-day life or leisure time rather than cohesive vocational training courses. As a consequence, more comprehensive studies were carried through on nurses (Benner, 1984) and on the car mechatronic (Rauner and Spo¨ttl, 2002). These studies focused on requirements for occupations as a whole. Benner for example defines seven areas of nursing practice, subdivided into five to ten sub-areas. Generally, she states (and this is also be shown by other authors) that reaching level 3, i.e. the level of the “actual” competent person (Dreyfus and Dreyfus call this level the “competent actor”) requires an occupational practice of two to three years and repeated routines. At the time of their entering their professional careers, graduates of nursing schools could, however, just be allocated to Level 2 – i.e. the intermediate beginners (Benner, p. 183) Based on this fact the application of the model for a vocational training course (regardless whether on secondary or tertiary level) raises the question whether it can be effective at all if only two out of five levels seem to be relevant. Nevertheless the “levels” are part of the competency development model which nowhere defines an absolute competency level for experts. A vocational training enables students to acquire expertise in certain areas which in other areas my not be so distinct and which may only reach the level of an intermediate there. Altogether, the graduation from a vocational training ensures a relative expertise, a level of competencies which allows for a successful professionalism. The consideration of this coherence is crucial for the description of competency development because it points at the embedding of competencies into the work coherences. A close link of competencies to the respective domain and the context of skilled work such as vocational education eventually characterizes occupational competency. Unlike intelligent machines where a sudden decrease of competency beyond the narrow area of domain (“plateau effect”) often leads to a failure of machine solutions for practical tasks, occupational competency is embedded in a context (work and living coherences) and is reflected in different intensity and multi-layered levels (Becker, 2004). For example: A mechatronic (to-be) may be an expert when it comes to repair a malfunction of a certain material flow system where he or she already has experiences. At the same time he or she may be just an intermediate with regard to the same system

of a different manufacturer (same domain) which is differently structured and for which completely different programming principles are valid (different context). Competency development of persons in training forms with a focus on holistic fields of applications can better be mapped with descriptions maintaining the application coherence than by persons in purely scholastic training systems[8]. A thus unavoidable preference of training systems featuring a closer interrelationship between theory and practice, however, is better suited to meet the requirements of vocational education. b) Work process descriptions Directly linked to this problem is the question how the description of the individual levels and/or profiles has to be realized and which methods are suitable to develop such a description. Benner chose the method of pairwise interviews (beginners and experienced nurses in their role as mentors) and partially group interviews and compiled and evaluated the thus collected examples (interview transcripts). Rauner (2004, p. 4 with reference to Bremer et al., 2001) is convinced that these descriptions are most likely to be successful if they are based on “expert-skilled-worker-workshops”[9]. All approaches to a description of work processes[10], however, result in the problem that the description concentrates on the competent coping with occupational tasks. Implicitly all these descriptions boil down to the highest performance level, i.e. the expert[11]. By additionally assuming that work process descriptions cannot be separated from major work coherences (Spo¨ttl and Becker, 2005a), the researchers are confronted with the task to deliver requirement profiles and/or descriptions of the practice which are aimed at competent persons, skilled persons or experts, i.e. at persons who have been qualified at this level (the German terminology: volle Berufsfa¨higkeit – full ability to master an occupation). With regard to the sketched statement that persons undergoing initial training can only go beyond the second competency level (intermediates) by making greater efforts and depending on the complexity of a domain, the perspective of training results in the problem that comprehensive work process descriptions are rather interpreted as target orientations which cannot reached offhand during the training course. Furthermore, the question has to be clarified whether a description of competencies oriented to work processes do not completely exclude experiences acquired at school. In this connection it is not yet clarified whether abilities acquired at school can be transferred to the work situation. Generally, it can be stated that the transfer problem as such has not yet been solved[12]. c) Heterogeneity of professions and work tasks It is obvious that the Dreyfus model is working efficiently with professions oriented towards competency development: the nurse, the car mechatronic, the airplane pilot. The acquisition of expertise can be very well described for the respective core work tasks, e.g. flying an airplane. The model is also well suited for a lot of freelance professions and above all for professions which have strong tendencies towards professionalism. However, the model in its current application is only suitable for the increasing share of occupational reality if the multi-dimensionality is consequently taken into consideration. And this is why:

Putting Dreyfus into action

175

JEIT 32,2/3

.

.

176

.

The differentiation of the professional field and the related specialisations make it increasingly harder to define the core work tasks. Therefore, an inherent “dynamics” has to be taken into consideration. It is just the increasing expertise in a field, a domain or a profession which leads to a change of career and thus to new fields of responsibilities and tasks. This swiftly calls for complex competency descriptions. A lot of training, professionalisation and career paths are superficially not structured in a way to lead from the novice (apprentice) to the expert (master) but rather to new work tasks whose relevance for competency development must be determined. The relevant domains have yet to be empirically identified. This has been shown in the case of the EcoRecycler (Blings and Spo¨ttl, 2003).

With respect to these coherences interlinking work complexes can also be found and described for less profiled and consistent branches and fields of work (Blings and Spo¨ttl, 2003). The statement has to be scrutinized that the Dreyfus model is a holistic model which always considers the expert as the target perspective. Dreyfus and Dreyfus are, however, only “holistic” in terms of sub-areas which, however, merge in domains. The holistic aspect refers to the competency of the researcher for the mastering of occupational work tasks and/or the ability to solve an occupational problem. Only by reflecting this interrelationship the multi-dimensionality of the professional competency will become visible[13]. How these problems can be solved and to which extent Dreyfus and Dreyfus themselves give the decisive hints for a solution Dreyfus and Dreyfus also provide decisive hints for the solution of these problems. These hints have so far not been considered in the model as it was not necessary for an application in sections for certain occupational and every-day competencies. We think that Dreyfus and Dreyfus are only interpreted in a correct way (and that their model can be correctly applied) as soon as the following statements are taken seriously. They are all related to a few pages of introduction to their model concept (Dreyfus and Dreyfus, 1986a, p. 19): One is not generally an expert as a person but only for certain areas of competency! Consequently, an individual will be at the same time an expert with respect to certain types of problems in his area of skills, but less skilled with respect to others. A businessman, for example, may show expertise in marketing while at the same time being only competent as financial planner, and a mere novice when it comes to negotiating a merger (Dreyfus and Dreyfus, 1986a, p. 20).

Dreyfus and Dreyfus stress that a person cannot at the same time be an expert in clearly different areas – better “domains” – even if he or she requires adjacent or related fields of tasks for his or her own work. Benner also deals with the topic of specialisations and gives a concrete example: “A nurse who had done a very good job at the intensive care station found it hard to meet the requirements she faced at a general surgery station” (Benner, 1994, p. 177).

This trivial fact continuously causes considerable difficulties during the consequent application of the Dreyfus model as it may lead to a differentiation of the expert profile according to tasks[14]. This trap can be avoided if the work processes with their different dimensions are the focus of the considerations rather than isolated, work oriented thinking. This always ensures competency structures and profiles encompassing both the width and the depth. Thus, the problem can be solved by a deliberate differentiation of an occupational competency profile with the aid of work process orientation and the structurisation according to the Dreyfus competency ladder (Figure 1). Dreyfus and Dreyfus almost always speak of the person as an expert rather than of the expertise in competency areas. These formulations imply that the professional expert is always perceived as someone mastering an absolute expertise for all tasks in his area of work. He or she is rather marked by a “considerate rationality”. “Such a rationally does not aim at separating situations into context free elements but to better assess entire situations”. Even Benner who unlike Dreyfus deals with a concrete differentiation with the aid of competency areas does not strictly differ between the respective attained expertise within the competency areas and the person as an entity. This results in the following problem which is more or less inherent in the model: One talks about experts without defining which competency level in which area must be attained in order to be recognised as an expert in the entire profession defined by the individual competency areas[15]. Expertise is thus always a relative dimension. Someone can also be an expert for simple tasks without reaching expertise in neighbouring domains. The car mechatronic for example is not an expert per se for all tasks and problems around the vehicle. He or she is neither the car developer nor does he or she master all specialized tasks of the branch – but he or she can be called an expert because he or she masters the domain relevant for him or her. The domain neither includes the vehicle development nor the driving of a car but encompasses service, repair, diagnosis, and customer advisory tasks with the aim to keep the vehicle functioning. The solution of this problem lies in the way of differentiation of different competency areas which collectively characterize the profile of an occupation. Competency levels have to be assigned to core work tasks. Not all persons achieve the expert level for certain competency areas and the latter have very different meanings for the every-day life or the professional life Not all people achieve an expert level in their skills. Some areas of skill – chess, for example – have the characteristic that only a very small fraction of beginners can ever master the domain. [. . .] Other areas, such as automobile driving, are designed in a way that almost all novices can eventually reach the level we call expert, although some will always be more skilled than others (Dreyfus and Dreyfus, 1986b, p. 21).

Here, it becomes apparent that: . one and the same level in different competency areas can have both “social” and individually different impact; and . a comparison of one and the same level across different competency areas does not make sense. Experts for motoring and chess experts are completely different in terms of training, duration of experience, social perception (reputation) and socio-economical importance.

Putting Dreyfus into action

177

JEIT 32,2/3

178

With regard to a similar point of departure – i.e. the introduction of the British National Vocational Qualification System (NVQ) – Eraut also recognises the social dimension of this problem: The proponents of this system [NVQ] will argue that it frees qualifications from being defined by the length of a training course. But it also risks a certain lack of comparability across occupational sectors; because the amount of training needed to reach Level 3 in one occupation could easily be twice as much as that needed in another. From a learning-needs perspective this presents no problem, but it conflicts with other societal norms (Eraut, 1994, p. 185).

A different length of the training course can, e.g. result in different salaries and a different social prestige[16]. As for our point of departure, the hint is sufficient that defined competency levels cannot compared to each other (even in one and the same professional area) and that a basic differentiation in levels nevertheless makes sense because – as Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1986b, p. 21) state: The most talented persons on a competency level will always perform better than the most talented persons on the level below! This is why the model makes sense in spite of a limited comparability[17]. There are at least five competency levels! A careful study of the skill-acquisition process shows that a person usually passes through at least five stages of qualitatively different perceptions of his task and/or mode of decision making as his or her skills improve (Dreyfus and Dreyfus, 1986a, p. 19).

This is the only point where we think that Dreyfus and Dreyfus may be mistaken, as there can also be less levels. Dreyfus and Dreyfus assume that all levels have to be passed through as a matter of principle[18]. First and foremost, it seems to be correct that the number of levels are not meant to restrict but have to be flexible although some of the levels underpin that it should be exactly five levels. If, however, qualitative differences can be found, there could also be more than five. Nevertheless they are mistaken as there is a clear dependence of the definition of the competency areas from the number of qualitatively distinguishable competency levels. It may be that five levels exist always and everywhere. They only cannot always be observed. This criticism must not automatically lead to abandon the model but should only stress another need for adaptation. The amount of the competency area in question as well as a possible further differentiation is discretionary. It is less discretionary but arbitrary in other respects to state whether these are “basic” skills. The dependency of the acquisition of a skill (competency) from another skill (competency) is too little considered in this model as in most empirical surveys. If the fact that the mastering of some tasks is a prerequisite for the acquisition of other tasks is to be taken into consideration, the Dreyfus model must be further developed towards a development logical model. The development logical coherence of tasks must therefore be more closely surveyed in order to be able to correctly judge the skills acquired during training and to assign them an adequate importance. As a summary, it may be stated that the number of levels is less important for qualitative description of process oriented tasks, that this dimension can, however, play an important role for a uniform (international) system and that a differentiation of

tasks must in any case take into account the development logical coherence between the different tasks and competency areas respectively. The role of examples and development tasks respectively After discussing the form of the structurisation of descriptions of competency acquisition, the question remains how the descriptions of the respective competency areas and the related levels themselves have to be realized. Decisive hints have already been given: The description should be oriented to work process and/or work process oriented tasks and should be related to the objects of work, the tools, the work organisation and the methods as well as the requirements in order to avoid to be “haunted by de-contextualisation”. The most efficient means in this connection seem to be “good” examples, which can safeguard a consequent link to the context, the domain and the application. It is amazing that the literature on the application of the Dreyfus models hardly contains any discussions about the role of the examples although no reasonable description of competency can do without them. Benner’s analysis exclusively relies on the tasks, on “real” examples, i.e. reports of real cases given by nurses. She also abstracts the different competencies for the sake of structurisation. These abstracts, however, only serve as titles whereas the real descriptions of the practice are to be found in interview quotations or their paraphrases. In this context Benner speaks of “paradigmatic cases” (Benner, 1994, p. 31). Dreyfus and Dreyfus as well deem the examples central but do not explicitly pick them out as central themes. A thorough analysis of examples and their importance for the acquisition of implicit knowledge can, however, be found in the book “Impure Reason” by Janik (2002). He writes – and you could not put it more clearly: Tacit knowing refers to a wide variety of things whose only common characteristic is precisely that they have to be learned by doing rather than by studying. For this reason it is very hard to say anything about it except by referring to concrete examples and case studies. Most misunderstandings with respect to tacit knowledge arise because people forget about the case studies and examples in whose terms alone it can be profitably discussed, and try to imagine it in the abstract. This is always disastrous. Tacit knowledge means little apart from examples and case studies.

And Janik speaks out even more clearly: “In practical activities examples play the role that definitions do in theory formation“ (Janik, 1995, p. 2). One is tempted to continue and amend: [. . .] and when it is a good description of practical actions, examples cannot be omitted less than ever. Examples are not simply an illustrating element of descriptions but they are playing a constitutive role. Also in the case of the car mechatronic, the empirical examination of the domain is in the focus of interest and numerous examples characterize the different competency levels and the expertise necessary to cope with tasks. Only concrete links to the world of work, to the work processes can characterize the multi-dimensionality of the challenges behind the tasks (Rauner and Spo¨ttl, 2002).

In the case of teaching and curriculum construction, we speak of development tasks (Gruschka, 1985) instead of precedence, paradigmatic cases or canonical examples. The simple basic idea is that competency development takes place by the coping with certain tasks. These tasks have the property to logically support the development of the professional competencies of the individual. The immanent difficulty is to identify and

Putting Dreyfus into action

179

JEIT 32,2/3

180

describe the supra-individual logic of development. The approach to a solution is marked by the fact that only central tasks can be identified within a domain or a profession that can be used in terms of development tasks (Figure 2). These development tasks maintain in any case the link to the real requirements of professionals (this is underlined by the grey areas which mark the depth and the width of core work tasks). Partly, they go beyond these boundaries and take into consideration that competencies for a certain task (e.g. Task D) require certain competencies for another task (e.g. Task B) and cannot be developed by starting at the level of a novice (cf. last chapter). For our arguments it is crucial to mention that examples in the form of central professional actions are important both for learning (acquisition of competencies/development of competencies) and for their description. It is a frequent and completely false conclusion to think that although they do play a role for the acquisition of competences they could be omitted in the description of the acquisition of competences. Example of a competency matrix By considering all these hints and nevertheless maintaining the Dreyfus model, one can shape the instrument of a competency matrix[19]. Competency requirements of different competency areas are described with the aid of examples and/or development tasks in a sense of work process oriented tasks. Within the framework of the project VQTS, financed by the European Commission, the Austrian Federal Ministry for Education, Science and Culture and the Austrian Federal Ministry for Economy and Work, such a competency matrix was developed for the occupational profile of a “mechatronic” and will serve as an example. In the first column the competency areas or groups of competencies linked to work process oriented tasks are listed (Figure 3). Based on core work tasks, a varying number of competence areas are defined, depending on the complexity, range of activities or job opportunities. This table merely serves as a rough overview and does not show the acquirable or actual competencies available to a person in training. In order to be able to show these, a description of the specifications of the individual competency areas is necessary: Therefore, 2 to 6 steps of the competency development (SCD) for every competency area

Figure 2. Competency development for an occupation by dealing with development tasks

Putting Dreyfus into action

181

Figure 3. List of competency areas for relevant work tasks (First column of the competency matrix for a mechatronic)

are described in the second column of the row. Figure 4 is an example of the description of competency steps for the competency area “D. Manufacturing mechatronic parts, components and systems”. In earlier chapters we have already mentioned some of the basic principles for the creation of such competency descriptions, which highlight the context of professional action within a domain: the reference to objects of work, tools, the use of examples. By considering these principles, it becomes evident, how difficult it is to draw up a “good” competency description. Even the examples we have developed in the mechatronics area do not yet live completely up to these demands. This is especially true for the use of examples.

Figure 4. Steps of competency development for the competency area D (column two in the row of the competency matrix for a mechatronic)

JEIT 32,2/3

It is also clear that – in particular with a view to the last set of dimensions described – not always all aspects can be considered in a competency description. Rather pragmatic paths will have to be stroken and it will only show in practice how comprehensive these descriptions have to be. Furthermore, specific expert knowledge is needed, in particular methodical know-how to be developed in order to moderate processes for the setting up of competency descriptions.

182 Open questions and conclusions We have shown exemplarily that standardised descriptions of different phases of competency development of individual persons undergoing training and individual training programmes respectively can both as a principle and in practice be carried through with an orientation to domains and contexts. The contents of such competency matrixes can thus be set up by making use of research instruments – above all of work process analyses (Spo¨ttl and Becker, 2005b). Expert workshops and national consultations of the bodies responsible for training can increase the acceptance at political and branch levels[20]. The amount and the grade of detailing of the descriptions can be coped with as it may be assumed that the descriptions will possibly not exceed two pages. The expenditure for the preparation and the continuous review – for all member states – may be assumed to be of lesser importance than the expenditure which is currently necessary for the preparation and the implementation of “Certificate Supplements”. In addition, the certificate supplements are summaries of curriculum descriptions which are problematic for the mutual recognition of competencies and are rather suitable to increase the transparency of national training contents. Although the feasibility may be taken for granted, there are some questions which we have partly already raised and which we have not yet raised. Finally, we would like to raise some important questions: Is all this worth the trouble or are there easier ways? The question has probably to be affirmed if the task is confined to the target of exchanging training performances with the aid of an ECVET system. One could argument that additional formal requirements make the access to education and educational mobility harder rather than promoting it. Example: At the moment the stay abroad of a person undergoing training can be arranged comparatively informally in most of the countries (in Austria up to one year, in Germany up to 25 per cent of the training period). The introduction of the ECVET, however, is likely to slow down the current procedures and would at any case require more formal time and efforts for all persons involved. Another argument is that the promotion of mobility could better be reached by a liberalisation of current regulations than by a standardisation and formalisation. Above all, with regard to the exchange of training performances, which per se do not yet provide any authorisations (as the latter are linked to a graduation) the risk would be rather small. The students have to prove themselves anyway and in case they aim at a graduation they have to meet the same criteria as anybody else. Why build additional obstacles for an access? The model developed here is nevertheless worth pursuing as its potential for application clearly exceeds the use within the framework of ECVET as, e.g. for the creation of national occupational profiles, corporate job profiles or the description of training profiles, to just name a few. As a help for implementation in a national context

it is not confined to the exchange of training performances but is open to the entire professional world and the world of work. Can the prerequisite of the comparability of occupational requirement profiles assumed above really be taken for granted across the boundaries of the countries? Rather not. At least strictly considered. It is undoubtedly correct that individual job profiles are internationally seen very similar and comparable conditions may be rather found in the economy than in the educational area. This is simply due to the fact that the globalisation of the economy is and has always been much more advanced than this will surely never be the case for strictly nationally determined educational courses. But even a survey of multi-national enterprises taking advantage of this fact has revealed that the same jobs in one and the same enterprise in different national subsidiaries may call for different kinds of competencies (Markowitsch et al., 2002). There are “industry cultural” differences that count. Based on a purely theoretical requirement this assumption is thus not suitable whereas practically seen the approach is more promising than the attempt to establish a comparability of the educational systems. Eventually, the approach proposed here tries to build a bridge between a terminology marked by the educational worlds and a terminology marked by the world of work. Work processes are thus to be found in these descriptions along with classical learning tasks. Does the shaping of curricula really remain unaffected by this instrument of competency description? Probably not. In contrast to the current ECTS or ECVET system respectively an immediate intervention or an adaptation of the curricula is not necessary. In the long-term, however, an impact on the latter is to be expected. This is especially valid for those countries or areas which are so far not revealing any curricula oriented to learning outcomes as there will be a new aspect of traditional curricula through competency descriptions. If the general trend towards learning output oriented curricula should be opposed, it is better to stay off the proposed model – or to avoid any discussions at all! Notes 1. European Qualification Framework Commission of the European Communities, 2005; EUROPASS (http://europass.cedefop.eu.int); Ploteus (http://europa.eu.int/ploteus). 2. See primarily the Copenhagen declaration (EC, 2002). 3. Reports from the technical working groups (TWG, 2004/2005). 4. Vocational Qualification Transfer System (VQTS, see www.vocationalqualification.net), ECTS for Chemistry Workers (see www.ects-chemie.de/), see also www.leonardodavinci-projekte.org 5. Learning outcomes can be defined as a “set of knowledge, skills and/or competences an individual acquired and/or is able to demonstrate after completion of a learning process” (Tissot, 2004, p. 47). 6. cf. also other competency development models such as the one designed by Schmidt, Norman and Boshuizen (1990) for physicists. These models seem, however, to be less suitable for our aim to characterize vocational developments. 7. This was, e.g. applied for car mechatronics (Rauner and Spo¨ttl, 2002) and skilled workers in the recycling sector (Blings and Spo¨ttl, 2003).

Putting Dreyfus into action

183

JEIT 32,2/3

184

8. Markowitsch has already discussed the consequences of this model for teaching (for instruction) in another publication (Markowitsch, 2001, p. 137): “(...) here the teachings meet their limits as – according to Dreyfus and Dreyfus – expertise cannot be taught. The conventional pedagogy is, however, rather powerless not only with regard to this last competency level but also in terms of the entire level model. Level 1 clearly forms part of this area and level 2 is taken into consideration and further developed in pedagogical models. Starting with level 3, it is evident that the teacher in his and her traditional function will become obsolete.” The development of occupational competency as a target of vocational education cannot solely be promoted by general approaches of pedagogy and calls for vocationally oriented didactics in order to support the development of competency levels up to the expert level. 9. The choice of experts who are able to describe the work processes with adequate depth is crucial. This is not always possible in expert-skilled-worker-workshops. Therefore, interviews in terms of Benner as well as more comprehensive methodical approaches aiming at the direct survey of work processes are playing an important role (Spo¨ttl and Becker, 2005b; Spo¨ttl, 2003). 10. As for a discussion of the term, e.g. Ro¨ben (2004). 11. It is crucial to state that the expertise of a person is oriented to occupational work which, on the other hand, requires a certain “embedded” competency (relative expertise, see above). 12. The expertise research has proved that the “transfer problem” is due to a lack of link to the “context” and the “domain” (Becker, 2004). 13. A domain characterizes an area, a dominion or special subject where someone excels in a special way. Therefore, it seems to be justified to call each delimited acting area a domain where someone can act in a “dominant” way. The expertise research makes use of this opportunity as it assumes that competencies of an expert can only be related to his or her special subject. 14. Janik et al. (2000, p. 110) underline this problem in their survey on implicit knowledge in physicists: Due to the extensive specialisation of science and the subsequent expertise of scientists, the “physics expert” cannot not found. They introduce the somewhat bulky term of a “partial expert” compared to the “global expert”. 15. There is a close relationship between the individual competency areas, marked by the domain and the context. The description of isolated competency areas dedicated to work tasks freed of their context thus does not lead to applicable competency descriptions and classifications for occupational profiles. 16. This is also the core problem of the so-called European Qualification Framework (EQF), currently developed by the European Commission: the abstract, occupational and sector-decontextualised level descriptions do per se represent coherent competency and applicability and/or level descriptions. They are, however, across the grain of any occupational reality. 17. The adherence to the Dreyfus terminology may result in problems here as the use of the same gauge (numerically arranged levels) for different and incomparable competency areas can easily lead to misunderstandings. As for our approach, we will therefore speak of “competency levels” of different, non-numerically arranged competency requirements. 18. Cf. the limitations of Dreyfus and Dreyfus in the case of a pure acquisition of skills (1986b, p. 227). 19. Within the framework of the VQTS project. 20. Other reflections for the practical implementation are laid down in a document of the VQTS project (cf. VQTS, 2005).

References Becker, M. (2004), “Doma¨nenspezifische Kompetenzen fu¨r die Facharbeit im Automobilsektor”, in Ro¨ben, P. and Rauner, F. (Eds), Doma¨nenspezifische Kompetenzentwicklung zur Beherrschung und Gestaltung informatisierter Arbeitssysteme, W. Bertelsmann, Bielefeld, pp. 31-44. Benner, P. (1984), From Novice to Expert – Excellence and Power in Clinical Nursing Practice, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Menlo Park, CA. Benner, P. (1994), Stufen zur Pflegekompetenz – From Novice to Expert, Verlag Hans Huber, Bern. Blings, J. and Spo¨ttl, G. (2003), “A European core occupational profile for the closed loop and waste economy. Herausgeber: Nationale Agentur Bildung fu¨r Europa beim Bundesinstitut fu¨r Berufsbildung (BIBB)”, in Bremer, R. (Ed.), Impuls-Reihe, Heft-Nr. 9, Bonn, Technik und Bildung – Habilitationsschrift, Bremen. Commission of the European Communities (2005), “Commission staff working document. Towards a European qualifications framework for lifelong learning”, paper presented at the SEC(2005) 957 conference, Brussels. Dreyfus, H.L. and Dreyfus, S.E. (1986a), Ku¨nstliche Intelligenz – Von den Grenzen der Denkmaschine und dem Wert der Intuition, Rowohlt, Reinbeck b., Hamburg. Dreyfus, H.L. and Dreyfus, S.E. (1986b), Mind over Machine – The Power of Human Intuition and Expertise in the Era of the Computer, The Free Press, New York, NY. EC (2002), Declaration of the European Ministers of Vocational Education and Training, and the European Commission, Convened in Copenhagen on 29 and 30 November 2002, on Enhanced European Cooperation in Vocational Education and Training. The Copenhagen Declaration, EC, Copenhagen, 30 November. Eraut, M. (1994), Developing Professional Knowledge and Competence, Falmer Press, London, Philadelphia. Gruschka, A. (1985), Wie Schu¨ler Erzieher werden – Studien zur Kompetenzentwicklung und fachlichen Identita¨tsbildung in einem doppeltqualifizierenden Bildungsgang des Kollgeschulversuchs NW, Wetzlar. Janik, A. (1995), “The concept of knowledge in practical philosophy” (in Swedish). Janik, A. (2002), Impure Reason (in Swedish). Janik, A., Markowitsch, J. and Seekircher, M. (2000), Die Praxis der Physik – Lernen und Lehren im Labor, Springer Verlag, Wien/New York, NY. Markowitsch, J. (2001), Praktisches Akademisches Wissen – Werte und Bedingungen praxisbezogener Hochschulbildung, Schriftenreihe des Fachhochschulrates 4, WUV-Universita¨tsverlag, Wien. Markowitsch, J., Kollinger, I., Warmerdam, J., Moerel, H., Konrad, C., Burell, D. and Sellin, B. (2002), Competence and Human Resource Development in Multinational Companies – A Comparative Analysis between Austria, The Netherlands and United Kingdom, CEDEFOP, Thessaloniki. Rauner, F. (2004), Praktisches Wissen und berufliche Handlungskompetenz, ITB – Forschungsberichte 14/2004. Rauner, F. and Spo¨ttl, G. (2002), Der Kfz-Mechatroniker – Vom Neuling zum Experten, W. Bertelsmann, Bielefeld. Ro¨ben, P. (2004), “Kompetenzentwicklung durch Arbeitsprozesswissen”, in Jenewein, K. (Ed.), Kompetenzentwicklung in Arbeitsprozessen, Bildung Arbeitswelt Band 9, Vol. 9, Nomos-Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden.

Putting Dreyfus into action

185

JEIT 32,2/3

186

Spo¨ttl, G. (2003), Work Process Analyses as Instrument for Developing Standards, Flensburg: biat, Kuala Lumpur. ¨ Spottl, G. and Becker, M. (2005a), “Work related zones of mutual trust (WRZMT) as a basis for a model for credit transfer in vocational education and training”, discussion paper within the project VQTS – Vocational Qualification Transfer System, Flensburg. Spo¨ttl, G. and Becker, M. (2005b), “Arbeitsprozessanalysen – Ein unverzichtbares Instrument fu¨r die Qualifikations- und Curriculumforschung”, in Huisinga, R. (Ed.), Bildungswissenschaftliche Qualifikationsforschung im Vergleich – Qualifikationsbedarf und Curriculum, Band 3, Verlag der Gesellschaft zur Fo¨rderung arbeitsorientierter Forschung und Bildung, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 111-38. Tissot, P. (2004), Terminology of vocational training policy – a multilingual glossary for an enlarged Europe, CEDEFOP, available at: http://europass.cedefop.eu.int/img/dynamic/ c313/cv-1_en_US_glossary_4030_6k.pdf (accessed 15 January 2006). TWG (2004), “Principles and essential rules for implementation of a European credit transfer system for vocational education and training (ECVET)”, interim report of the working group, Brussels, 23 November. TWG (2005), European Credit System for VET (ECVET), Technical Specifications, Report of the credit transfer technical working group. VQTS (2005), Competence Certificate, Proposal for Implementation of an ECVET-Procedure Developed within the Framework of the VQTS Project, VQTS, Vienna. About the authors Jo¨rg Markowitsch is Chairman and Managing Director of 3s Management Consultancy in Vienna/Austria. He was responsible for numerous European research projects on vocational education and training and the development of the labour market. Among others he concentrates on issues of efficient management. Jo¨rg Markowitsch is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected] Karin Luomi-Messerer is responsible for research at 3s Management Consultancy in Vienna/Austria. Above all, she is managing European projects and currently works on issues on the European Qualification Framework and the Credit Point System. Matthias Becker is Junior Professor at the Institute for Vocational Education and Technology of the University of Flensburg. He is doing research in the fields of automotive service, curriculum development and design of occupational profiles. Georg Spo¨ttl is director of the Institute Technology and Education, Bremen University. He looks back on several European research and development projects targeting at the design of curricula, identification of skill needs and the analysis of work process in classical sectors as well as newly emerging sectors such as car-service or recycling.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0590.htm

VET in the European aircraft and space industry

The European aircraft and space industry

Rainer Bremer Institute of Technology & Education, Bremen University, Bremen, Germany

187

Abstract Purpose – This article aims to take up a mirror image-oriented position of the EQF and the announced ECVET system. It seeks to be concerned with the effects that the EQF transformation process into the respective NQF might have on the underlying systems of vocational education and training. Design/methodology/approach – A comparison is drawn between the competence development the four different VET systems in France, Germany, Spain, and the UK initiated by the identical qualification demands of the sector of aircraft industry (AIRBUS plants in France, Germany, Spain, and the UK). This serves as a finding for the evaluation of the EQF and the effects it will could on the sector of the European aircraft industry. Findings – Three hypothesises on: convergence of skill requirements because of the technologies and procedures tend to become the same all over the world if the same products are manufactured; divergence of the national VET systems as a consequence of adaptation such requirements; and a structural reference between requirements and the development of competence, are tested and validated. Research limitations/implications – The research was confined to the aircraft and space industry and one enterprise co-operating in France, Germany, Spain, and the UK. Practical implications – It was possible to establish two European occupational profiles for this sector (aircraft mechanic and avionic). The applicability of a method for depicting competence development based on Havighurst’s theory of developmental tasks, is expected to be improved. Originality/value – A method of evaluating competence development was applied that can be used, despite some differences. Keywords Competences, Individual development, Europe, Vocational training, Aircraft industry, Aerospace industry Paper type Research paper

Education and training in the European aircraft and space industry – anticipated problems resulting from insufficient EQF quality Shortcomings of the EQF: standardisation of vocational education and training without reference to their contents? Experience with the AERONET project and the still relatively new application of its instruments suggests that the establishment of transparency regarding training performance and results depends on feedback concerning the quality of two variables, namely the form of the individual learning processes and the organised teaching processes. The article therefore deals with the disclosure of interrelationships between learning requirements and their accomplishment as learning achievement, respectively of learning results. In order to be able to make comparisons, it is necessary to have something by which quality can be determined. Comparisons with sustainable results will hardly be achieved by technical terms and conditions alone.

Journal of European Industrial Training Vol. 32 No. 2/3, 2008 pp. 187-200 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0309-0590 DOI 10.1108/03090590810861712

JEIT 32,2/3

188

The more or less openly admitted schematics or list of precedence of a comparison like the EQF, which tries not to intervene in the national systems, must blank out the content factor, as that, which is to be compared. This runs the risk of basing the system of comparison on a quid pro quo, a mix up, notably a confusion of the concepts of what and how. The “tertium comparationis” of the comparison is not even determined from the outset. This constructional deficit or design fault characterises the EQF as a whole. A methodologically significant part within the text states that: “the concept of qualification is of great significance for an EQF and needs to be defined in such a manner, that the existing, generally acceptable usages of this term are covered as much as possible”. The following definition, which is based on the work of the OECD, is suggested: A qualification is attained, when a responsible authority decides, that the level of learning which a person has reached in regard to knowledge, skills and competency, corresponds to the specified requirements.

Confirmation concerning the attainment of the sought after results, takes place by an evaluation process or a successfully completed course of studies. Learning as such, and the evaluation of knowledge from a qualification perspective, can take place in the context of a course of education and/or in the framework of vocational experience. A qualification comprises of official acknowledgement, that is recognised and accepted on the labour market and moreover enables the continuation of education and training. A specific qualification can legally entitle someone to carry out a trade, or pursue a specific career. The value of such qualifications is essentially backed up by authorised state and/or federal education and vocational training authorities, who provide educational and vocational accreditation. Increasingly, however, it can be observed that facilities and associations outside of the official context of national qualification policies are claiming the right to confirm learning results officially and bindingly. An EQF must make allowance for such tendencies, in order to facilitate connexions between national and sectored qualification frameworks and systems (SEK, 2005, p. 14). The problematical aspects of this concept are characterised by the fact, that it considers the question about the quality of training on the basis of the national systems, to have been answered, in order to then pass off a commensurability of EQF and ECVET procedures with the normal characteristics of these systems, as a core component of the measures for the attainment of transparency in the establishment of vocational qualifications. This however, leads to absurdities, as the deciding parameter does not occur, as a consequence of the EQF’s characterisation by hierarchical thinking and its associated two-dimensionality. The eight stages involved, begin with simple tasks and are completed with the classical academic professions. If vocational training is to have a logical place in this, then it will be somewhere in between. That at least is how it appears. In order to avoid any misconceptions about member countries being forced to adopt systemic structuring with standardised classifications, the level of professional and vocational standards such as for example, that concerning nurses, will remain open in its graduations. Reasons for this include, that in one particular country, a specific

course of studies has to be undertaken at university for instance, whereas in another country, it is sufficient to absolve a course at a vocational school, and in a further country, it may be obligatory, to do courses that are completed by sitting for an examination. Such differences appear to be covered by the graduations. The vertical organisation does not depend prima facie on rigid classifications (Grollmann and Rauner, 2006). The complementary ECVET approach however, lies athwart to this, ideally speaking, horizontally. More or less well organised vocational training, as regards time and contents, like education and training or in other terms, development, would be impossible to be represented on a vertical scale, but rather the dimension of breadth, on what in principle, is the same level, but nevertheless, a level, on which the tasks have to be mastered discretely. In view of their potential dissimilarity, an additional dimension, could come into play, namely that of depth, where formally identifiable competence is individually elaborated. The EQF mixes up this dimension of depth with the hierarchically intended height dimension of differences, caused by their formally imagined provenance. The EQF confuses the diversity that it ostensibly wants to endorse, mistaking diversity with a surface or colourful fac¸ade, which must perforce, remain a “Potemkin village” from the perspective of vocational education and training, as long as the range of individual development of competence is not recognised, by the acceptance of all such qualities that are not envisaged in the hierarchical interpretation of graduations. The instrument recommends a height dimension in order to facilitate differentiation, which requires an appreciation of depth and range of qualification instead. Serious deficits must be reckoned with after the implementation of a national EQF in the supplementation by an ECVET system, in light of this major lack of a conception of the empirical qualities, of vocationally attained competency. The example of the European Aircraft and Space Industry, allows us to call to mind, the German pilot project experience over the past 15 years: Shortly after the introduction of the training workshops and the recognition of the consequences of the “overly school-like structure” of vocational training courses, an attempt was already made at countering the poverty of experience, of what for all intents and purposes, was a well organised form of learning. This was done by the application of countless models and by means of diverse concepts. Although this was a well-intentioned approach, it was nevertheless characterised by a paucity of demands and standards (Dehnbostel, 2001; Bremer, 2004, Krogoll, 1991; Rohlfing and Schenk, 1990).

Decentration and self-operationalisation processes (Bremer, 2004; Lenzen, 1973; Heursen, 1995) central to the development of vocational competency and autonomy, cannot be attained through the functions, of what is largely institutionalised and deliberately targeted teaching. The gap between working conditions and learning conditions cannot be overcome by approaches of this kind. Flagrant examples illustrating this situation, include individuals, who successfully completed their vocational training with excellent examination results, but who are none the less, regarded as only barely disposing over the necessary vocational aptitude in their chosen occupational paths. Causal factors contributing to this are the overly school-like structure of vocational learning and the departure of training from the work processes, where the mastery of work processes must ultimately be the logical goal of any form of training (Rauner, 1999).

The European aircraft and space industry 189

JEIT 32,2/3

190

The model experiments used for measuring the quality of vocational education and training, both implicitly and explicitly, by testing in real places of employment and work environments, were aimed at reducing this gap between professionalised learners, and learners empowered to competently carry out their occupations. On the other hand, the two dimensions of the EQF and the ECVET only constitute the provenance and stages, perhaps merely the elements of the path of education and training. Both constructs thus remain auto-referential, falling short of the quality of individually experienced education and training biographies and thereby, of that which individuals tend to bring along as their very own potential, in terms of knowledge and ability, the delivery of which can only however, be achieved within work processes, the mastery of which leads to the growth of those very competences. These then represent the subjective prerequisites, of what are generally termed qualifications required on the labour market. Certificates are meant to symbolise: [. . .] the attainment of a qualification, when a responsible body decides, that a person’s acquired level of learning corresponds to the specified knowledge, skills and competence.

The quality of education and training thus lies in the hands of an administration intent on confusing the issue of the organisation and systemic limitation of the acquisition of competences, with competency itself. In reality, the situation is quite the opposite. A qualification should only be certified when someone actually has it. Where the development context of qualifications and competences is given over to a system lacking in quality, such as the EQF and the ECVET, by means of competitive mechanisms and other instruments of subjective economics, a complete self-actualisation of the education and training systems will ensue, by virtue of the decoupling of vocational requirements – a problem that has already become apparent in the sector of the European Aircraft and Space Industry. Procedures to be undertaken in AERONET A small pilot project will be undertaken in the AERONET project over the coming two years. One production site of the AIRBUS aircraft manufacturer of each member country will participate, together with the local training centres and where appropriate, a number of schools, complemented by a correspondingly engaged institution of vocational education and training or a labour market research institution. The project work will be carried out on three levels in all four countries involved. The project work includes manufacturing; training (including the training centres) and optionally, the trade schools, as well as a monitoring institution, which can follow the respective national system through its particular horizon. The make up of the partnership aims at establishing and securing the project-wide principle of an identical participation structure. Project-wise, the design of the partnership aims at assuring an in principle, identical participation structure. System-wise however, this necessitates giving preference to a functional equivalence of the partners, rather than a formal equivalence. The partners are therefore not perceived from their formal role as an institution, but rather as organisations that fundamentally have to fulfil the same task, namely, that of qualification for the manufacturing of aircraft. The differences between the individual national education and training systems can thus be avoided. An equally functional role is hypothetically presumed for them. We hence don’t need to apply comparativistic methods to the systems (such as occupational regulations, the types of qualification

and qualification models or education and training based on them), but instead, work out the methodically conducted identification and logically consistent use of a tertium comparationis to be found in sector specific skilled work. The AERONET pilot project is not meant to retain the status of a special case. It is initially necessary to limit the focus onto one sector, if the originality of educational systems and training systems is to be empirically assessed beyond systemic structures. A different procedure would lead to generalisations being made, that could hardly bear up to the scrutiny of results gained from sectors such as the health system, gastronomy or skilled service and maintenance work. Our approach is to make a virtue out of this limitation, by researching the sector simply as what it is, a sector. It is organised as a large-scale industry and is therefore comprised off several internationally competitive companies. The key to understanding the challenges and problems associated with personnel development, the development of education and training as well as on-going training at the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS), is the authentic trans-national nature of the enterprise group EADS and its subsidiaries such as AIRBUS. EADS is not merely a transnational enterprise with national origins and branches or plants in additional countries, but a truly transnationally positioned enterprise, that developed from the merger of strong erstwhile partners. The transnational character is illustrated well by the example of Airbus, the largest EADS division, which has plants in Germany, France, England and Spain. The different Airbus plants together produce an aircraft family that has been very successfully introduced onto the world market and for a time, wrested the market leadership from the renowned Boeing enterprise. Every aircraft sold by AIRBUS has components and modules produced on the basis of the division of labour between the four participating countries, at the locations consolidated under AIRBUS. A significant characteristic here is that the individual functionalities are transnationally staffed and geared. Thus, we find German engineers having their supervisor in France or British workers having their team leader in Germany, whereas production takes place in all four countries, according to the same standards, subject to the same quality requirements and very importantly, under comparable cost considerations. Work organisation and work processes are largely identical in the context of “Best-Practice” organisation. Even though an aeroplane is not really an article of mass production, its market chances as a de facto costly, but also extra-ordinarily long-lived investment (producer durable) good, depend not only on high quality and an attractive price, but also on the variability and adaptability, with which the needs and requirements of airlines are met, as regards the network of flying routes and the passenger volume. The market for aircraft of such dimensions must moreover be universally described as a global market, as the aircraft are not only sold to all four corners of the globe, they also fly to destinations everywhere. There is neither rivalry nor competition for the products of the Aircraft and Space Industry between the partners on a national level! Instead, competition is exclusively international. Next to no other product fulfils the criterion of globalism as comprehensively as a civilian passenger aircraft for commercial use. What this means for the “criterion of quality” follows from the question concerning safety, which already props up in earnest for laypersons, such as passengers for

The European aircraft and space industry 191

JEIT 32,2/3

192

instance. Structures like bridges or tunnels can be built stably and made to look stable as well. This type of safety technology is eliminated in aircraft construction. Oversized components and assemblies, or design engineering dimensioning, make aeroplanes unnecessarily heavy, more uneconomical and ultimately only marginally safer, since even though individual systems may be stable, they cannot in principle, be constructed fail-safe. Both stability and the fundamentally not to be ruled out likelihood of breakdown or malfunction, have generated completely different safety technology in aircraft manufacturing, with the principle of redundant construction of the most significant components and units. This has taken place under the most stringent requirements, on national, European and worldwide levels. What matters in terms of redundancy, is the utilisation of lightweight materials and the sparing use of the necessary, expensive raw materials such as titanium alloyed steel. A plethora of materials and processes rarely utilised outside of the aircraft industry is used, to attain the highest degree of quality, operational safety and reliability of the product. The global market necessitates the yardstick of cost-effectiveness, whilst being innovative at the same time i.e. not merely relying on the tried and tested. Keywords used in this text, such as the transnationalism of an enterprise, globalism of a product in marketing terms, putting the finished product into service, the quality and cost-effectiveness of the product on a world market, as well as the singularity of materials and processes used, are the terms, by which the dimensions are expressed, in which the qualifications of the workforce need to be as highly developed as possible. Quality differences such as those still apparent between American cars on the one hand and European and Japanese cars on the other cannot be tolerated in the manufacture of a global product like an aeroplane. Where only extremely small tolerance margins are allowed for a product for safety reasons and there is the additional benchmark focus on a world market, this significantly influences the qualification requirements expected of the different workforces. What this means for the workforce, is that the workers too, must satisfy the minimum requirements, which by the very nature of the product already potentially lie within the realm of maximum or highest requirements. Technological and work organisation induced tendencies have thus, long established themselves within the entire European Aircraft and Space Industry, placing almost equally identical demands on the manpower in their form and contents. The traditional divergence between the systems partially stands in stark contrast to this. It is hardly surprising therefore, that those people, who have the responsibility for qualification and need to conciliate between the latent discrepancy between national differentiation of vocational education and training systems and the universalised convergence of these contrasting requirements, have to date, done this on completely separate levels (in enterprises, training centres, schools, teacher training institutions, institutes for curriculum development and pedagogical research). Notwithstanding this, certification systems do exist, through agreements between industry and regulatory authorities, which also affect vocational and professional training. The JAR (Joint Aviation Requirements) respectively, the EASA regulations (European Aviation Safety Agency) that have superseded the former JAR-regulation agreements define a common European and significantly, no longer, American level of requirements, which must be implemented on a national level, through education and/or training.

The possibility of succeeding in developing a set of vocational task oriented requirements in this sector, given the opportunities for combining the four prototypes of European traditions of vocational education and training of the member countries is very real. This can be carried out through cooperation with the EADS locations in the four European countries, in which different forms of access, identical result requirements, experience and solutions exist concurrently, so that one or two European core occupations crystallise, which provide a suitable basis for expanded certification. Prerequisites at the different locations Functional differences exist in the division of both work and labour, regarding vocational qualification, according to the respective national organisation of vocational education and training. The Dual System in Germany has produced the categories of teachers on the one hand, and trainers on the other. There are in addition, workers within industrial manufacturing and the service industry, who are directly involved in the creation of added value, i.e. the real net output and who are also engaged in the mentoring and supervision of trainees for qualification purposes. In countries with a school based vocational education and training system and institutionally defined job descriptions, teachers and trainers accordingly have a highlighted role. In factories and production shops on the other hand, there are the trainers or specialists, who also play an important role in qualification, without necessarily disposing over the obligatory pedagogical qualifications, simply through their own professional skills and knowledge (France). A further vocational education and training system exists, organised academically on the basis of modules, without job descriptions or occupational images and which accordingly, displays a diversity of qualification building blocks and elements. These are not as a rule, occupation based or branch related, since what is important here, is the attainment of non-specialised qualifications or special, directly usable qualifications. Teachers also play an important role here, while the enterprises are more or less free to make the personnel required by them for education and training into professionals (UK). Finally, there are also European countries that don’t have any significant state organised, public vocational facilities at the non-academic Post-Sixteen level, and which thus leave the task of qualification of the up and coming young workforce to the shop floor level. This leads perforce to a significant, but non-uniform role of privately organised, accountable vocational training (Spain). We thus find four characteristic systems of vocational qualification: (1) Systemic independent, dual, private respectively, state organised (AIRBUS Germany); (2) Systemic independent, academically respectively, state organised (AIRBUS France); (3) Interlocked with the labour market, modular individualised structure, privately accountable, but state supervised (AIRBUS United Kingdom); (4) Polytechnic direction. No labour market orientation as regards the skilled work level (AIRBUS Spain).

The European aircraft and space industry 193

JEIT 32,2/3

194

This divergence of responsibility between the changing private and public systems can only be answered by one basic approach, namely, one, that takes up the effects of what according to the hypothesis, are associated with a convergence of requirements, as a result of the tendency towards universalism. Where the tasks of skilled work include requirements relevant to training and qualification, they can be addressed in sector based and location oriented task setting, so as to operationalise them for training purposes. The competencies and skills necessary for working on and with aircraft respectively, flying objects, must therefore firstly be ascertained at the different plant sites, on the basis of direct added value. It is anticipated, that these competencies can initially be described in the form of task specific requirements. In other words, the tasks which the workforce has to fulfil would have to be identified in the context of the respective production, before questions regarding the volume or breadth of tasks that an individual employee should be able to master, are posed. This then furnishes the normative goals of the required education and or training. A comprehensive collection of such tasks, would at the same time, also reflect the operational work organisation and division of labour, even though this would not be on a job description or related level. It would nevertheless be a very functional basis. That element of the structure of occupational image, which would not normatively be the basis for planning, would become transparent. Such a sector and location oriented setting of tasks, would initially, have a strong business orientation. An appropriate method for the generalisation of the results is therefore important. This would also enable the validation of the consolidated findings, gained at the individual enterprise locations, about vocational tasks and their requirements. Three steps are required for this: (1) Illustration of the qualification requirements of the European Aircraft and Space Industry pertaining to skilled work by the ascertainment of sector and location based task setting. (2) Comparison of these location settings through a broadened validation process. (3) Comparison of the existing qualification enhancing training goals, associated with these settings, possibly documented by means of codes of conduct, curricula, examination provisions, et al. The sequence of steps one and two stands for the reference to the requirements. These are vested in the product, the organisation of its production, as well as the technologies and processes utilised for production. Step three represents the attempt at making an inventory of the existing, well-tried qualification measures related to the work process, in their respective system-specifics. This step obviously also incorporates the problems that may result from either too great a distance of training to work processes or vice versa, too much proximity. Both situations could result in deficits of the theory, which in turn, could hinder the further vocational development of an employee. The execution of the third step opens up a further possibility for the investigation of applied training, as it occurs in the four countries involved in the common aircraft company. As soon as the country specific qualification and training guidelines are known, then empirical methods can be implemented for investigating, how these specifications relate to the documented task based work, and how the required qualifications evolve in

the individual development process. Here, we put a method contiguous to work processes to the test, for the evaluative ascertainment of specialist competency. The aim here, is to use the elements involved with the first step, (sector and location based task) and the fundamentals of the second step (validation and inventory of the existing work process related qualification measures in their respective system specifics) as a basis and to enrich these with a new method, where the level of requirements represented in the setting of tasks, is crossed with the respective forms of training in such a manner, that the trainees become aware of the state of their skills and knowledge and abilities in close relationship to the requirements of the vocation – rather than their systemically divergent, organised vocational learning. This lends itself to inferring the manifestation of complex vocational work tasks from the hypothesis formulated under (1) about the universalisation of qualification requirements, the overcoming of which necessitates inter-workplace competencies. Without getting into adversity through imposing occupations as normative constructs onto these tasks, professionalism can be recognised in regard to such tasks, against the background of its technologically and organisationally contingent structure, brought about by the mastery of just these tasks. In addition to the objective factor, contributed by the requirements inherent in work and organisation, there is also a subjective response, which bestows something like professionalism on a set or an ensemble of tasks. This touches on the second hypothesis, on which the EVABCOM project is methodologically based (see Figures 1 and 2). Tasks of this nature will be set in all countries, during the course of further developments within the AERONET project. The criterion used, is not so much the learning level, as might be presumed i.e. the question as to whether suchlike was learnt or not, but rather the real, actual task posed similarly everywhere. In steps one and two it is ascertained beforehand, whether a task can really be considered to mutually apply. Where this is found to be the case, an informed judgement can be made about the performance effectiveness of the national respectively, sector specific training and qualification systems, on the basis of the task or the level of solutions worked out by the test person(s). By this means, AERONET attempts to compare the training performance of the different countries, and avoid drawing results exclusively from the logic of these systems.

The European aircraft and space industry 195

Figure 1. Example of the documentation of research results developed as a consequence of steps one and two

JEIT 32,2/3

196

Figure 2. Example of an evaluation task, with reference to the task

The reason behind avoiding this is not a methodological one, of ambitious comparison it rather arises from an interest in the optimisation of the learning processes, in the sense of the quality requirements of the sector. This typically results in the establishment of transparency, since one of the prerequisites is the establishment of a yardstick for comparison. Three hypotheses about the development of vocational education and training in Europe The sector typical requirements identified for skilled work represent the logical goal of qualification and training. That is why they proffer the “third approach”, which not only enables comparisons to be made in principle, but also helps furnish criteria that allow comparisons to be made beyond the descriptively attainable findings, providing a more or less operative quality. Further-going investigations about this have already been undertaken, which lead to the description of the empirical cores of primarily, sector specific occupations and second, to European occupations. This is presented in more detail elsewhere (Bremer, 2005). The hypotheses are only intended to be named in their fundamental roles here. The following hypotheses can be made: using the example of AERONET in a scrutiny of the European training and qualification systems: H1. Hypothesis of convergence resulting from universalisation. The raw materials and semi-finished goods available on global markets, as well as technologies in the form of production facilities, demand ever more similar requirements, regarding the quality of the products and consequently, also the quality of the work that needs to be carried out during the manufacturing process. The qualification requirements are thereby also subject to a type of universalisation. H2. Hypothesis of divergence as a consequence of adaptation. Every tendency towards universalisation must first be realised on the basis of local adaptation, characterised by traditional leeway and expressed for instance, through the

divergence of the education and training systems. Such differences will undoubtedly remain for quite a considerable time. There will therefore continue to be a big gap between systems, which organise gainful employment, from the perspectives of economics and education, on a vocational level, and systems that only know employment conditions without coherent occupational regulations. Focussing on the functional character of the education and training systems, it furthermore seems to be the case, that they are more directly affected by the tendency towards universalism than the qualified work itself. With it as the primary, socio-economically contingent forces may have an additional influence on the tendency towards universalism, so that the work that has to be done in the important dimensions of the division of labour and in organisation, for their part, remain a type of adaptation product. The education and training systems existing in a secondary relationship to this, will on the other hand have to accept this adaptation process as a norm, at the price of their functionality, if only, so as not to obstruct it. The factor of obstruction for instance, caused the tendency for the overly school-like structure of vocational training, forced through in Germany during the 1980s, to be superseded for instance, by the concept of business process orientation and work process orientation during the 1990s (Bremer and Jagla, 2000). A fatal characteristic already becomes evident here, one, that hits the systems quasi from below, from that ground which supports them both materially and economically. If they, within their respective national contexts, act as subsystems of the reproduction of qualification to those systems, that in turn operate with them, and carry out production, then the proprietary function of the education and training systems limited in this way, acquires a precarious aspect of originality, or more poignantly, the coercive necessity thereto, inherent in the tendency towards universalisation. During periods of only minor changes in the contents of qualification and corresponding forms, the relationship of interdependence between the subsystem of the reproduction of qualifications and the goal system which this requires for productive purposes, is characterised by easily handled traits. The “renewal” of qualifications is not only pedagogically something fundamentally different to the “changing” of qualifications. Where the functional imperative of procuring qualifications is no longer exclusively understood as “renewing”, but rather, “changing that which is to be renewed”, then a further, disproportionately more difficult to answer imperative appears, one, which Luhmann once roughly outlined as follows: [. . .] the educational system . . . can recognise the problem therein, that the education and training that is carried out, is too general, too theoretical, too far removed from practical application and does not sufficiently prepare for the special requirements of the individual vocations. Should curriculum planning be reformed in this sense, then the counter argument that training must prepare for an as yet, innominate future and the likelihood of job change [. . .] is obvious. The education and training system thus initially transforms the relationships to the economy into the paradoxicality of contrary planning recommendations, a paradoxicalness with which it can work internally. It “unfolds” the paradoxy by either seeking objectively different implementation concepts or by oscillating time-wise between both

The European aircraft and space industry 197

JEIT 32,2/3

198

recommendations. Although one cannot in principle, find any sensible solutions in this way, sensibility for requirements can however be maintained and reproduced, that can improve the opportunities on the labour market (Luhmann, 2002, p. 126).

Sociological analysis cannot contribute anything further to work of this nature that needs to be organised internally. The actual frame of reference, the organised skilled work or gainful employment, respectively, the level of requirements existing therein, constitutes itself technologically, economically and politically. A change of these requirements causes a repositioning of the precarious imperative for change between the internally progressing function of vocational education and training and the externally demanded need for qualification as its procuration. The conundrum about the quality of a qualification (which is the appropriate one?) and the problem of quantity (how many does one need?) is innately ubiquitous, whereas its solution remains local. It can therefore be said, that the learning conditions faced by individuals are fundamentally different to the working conditions, for which they are being prepared. Consequently, the vocational education and training institutions are likewise unable to model themselves as exact copies of the frame of reference and its structures. An additional endogenously effective factor comes into play in their case, which may have multiform variants, but which is also characterised by restricted plastic pronounced learning conditions. The compulsion towards originality is therefore twofold, resulting on the one hand, from the educating function, which only produces something like the fungibility of applicable qualifications at the end, and on the other hand, the existing pressure to adapt, emanating from the frame of reference. The two hypotheses about the convergence of vocational requirements, caused by universalisation, and that of the adaptation contingent divergence of their qualificational response, need to be supplemented by an additional hypothesis. The third hypothesis can be extrapolated as a consequence of the other two, if they are viewed from the perspective of the impartment of qualifications. Then it reads as follows: H3. Hypothesis of the structural reference between requirements and the development of competence. A structural reference exists between the qualificationally relevant vocational work tasks (skilled work or gainful employment) and the individual competencies that need to be developed, the acquisition of which provides access to the qualificational goal system (skilled work or gainful employment). Structurally speaking, what this means, is that the reference between the place where requirements are experienced and the overcoming or fulfilling of these through learning, also exists in situations where at the surface of the training, the significance of such experience is not apparent. It can thus be said, that the qualification requirements needed not only in skilled work, in technologies and processes, and in the organisation and division of labour, by which they are structured are objectified, but furthermore, that their procuration is also teleologically located there. In this respect, even though the difference between learning conditions and work conditions will always remain from the perspective of the learning individual, the goal of vocational learning is also, to overcome this difference through learning.

The organisation of the learning component of qualification through contents, curricula, methods and teaching aids, has a teleological reference point, where from the perspective of the objective work requirements, the fulfilment of tasks is a no less unavoidable condition of work. These conditions result as opposing variables in the dimensions of productivity, quality and cost-effectiveness, which can only be reconciled on a professional level. The learners are confronted by the standards of professionalism in the carrying out of job tasks in each single one of them, by making the experience, that a longer course of development is needed, in order to be able to offer acceptable quality, in an acceptable time frame, and by the avoidance of specific costs. In the face of all the prevailing national systemic conditions, it therefore makes sense to look at these standards as qualification requirements, or more or less, hidden norms of the goal system, the attainment of which, leads to occupational expertise, in which the required skills presume a non-trivial, non-amateurish level. By means of a type of interim resume´, the following formulation can be made, on the basis of the three hypotheses: Appropriate access to the different systems of vocational qualification needs to respect the requirements referred to in H1 on the one hand, and on the other hand, to avoid the restrictions referred to in H2, so as to make sure, that the national respectively, systemically characterised regional forms of vocational training are not merely comparatively accessible. A descriptive level of modern industrial work thus becomes necessary which enables sufficiently deep access to skilled competency in both the broader and the narrower sense. It is important here, to conceptualise the differing systemic requirements indicated in H2 as a changeable frame of development, for every type of attainable vocational competence. The proprietary dimension then is, what has already been referred to as the “original” characteristic structure of the training systems, with which they have to make allowance for the fact, that every form of objectively demanded qualification is based on learning processes, in the sense of the devolution of the processes of competence development and consequently on individual performance. Education and training systems are based on the one hand, on the response to objectively set qualification requirements, and then again, always also, on the no less objective learning conditions of the individuals. It may be realistically assumed that system factors like provisions, rules and regulations, up to rather informal influences, regarding their didactic-methodical intelligence, have to be considered in terms of the context of potentially highly demanding work processes. The latter provide access to empirical vocational contents. The opportunity is provided by the hypothesis, regarding the universalisation of qualification requirements formulated under H1, to infer their manifestation in complex vocational work tasks the accomplishment of which presuppose cross-work place competency. Without worrying about imposing vocations as normative constructs onto these tasks, professional accomplishment can be recognised by such tasks, from the background of the technology and organisation it was shaped by and which the mastery of these tasks evokes, that cannot simply be reduced to general personality traits by means of subjectification, or to benchmarking facts, by way of objectification.

The European aircraft and space industry 199

JEIT 32,2/3

In addition to the objective aspect, which requirements inherent in work and organisation contribute, there is also a subjective response, which imbues an ensemble or set of tasks with something like professionalism, at least, on the level of individually distinctive competency and competences that are in principle, geared to the accomplishment of specific tasks, which stand in an individually attainable context or horizon.

200 References Arbeitsunterlage der Kommissionsdienstellen – auf dem Weg zu einem europa¨ischen Qualifikationsrahmen fu¨r lebenslanges Lernen (2005), SEK, Bru¨ssel. Bremer, R. (2004), “Zur Konzeption von Untersuchungen beruflicher Identita¨t und fachlicher Kompetenz – ein empirisch methodologischer Beitrag zu einer berufspa¨dagogischen Entwicklungstheorie”, in Jenewein, K. (Ed.), Kompetenzentwicklung in Arbeitsprozessen – Beitra¨ge zur Konferenz der Arbeitsgemeinschaft gewerblich-technische Wissenschaften und ihre Didaktiken in der Gesellschaft fu¨r Arbeitswissenschaft am 23./24, Karlsruhe, Baden-Baden, pp. 107-21, September. Bremer, R. (2005), “Das EADS-Vorhaben “Move Pro Europe” – Eine Methode zur Erfassung kompetenzfo¨rderlicher Effekte durch Systeme der Berufsbildung”, in Eckert, M. and Zo¨ller, A. (Eds), Der europa¨ische Berufsbildungsraum – Beitra¨ge der Berufsbildungsforschung, 6. Forum der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Berufsbildungsforschungsnetz (AG BFN), Vol. 3, Universita¨t Erfurt, AG BFN, Erfurt, pp. 19-20, September. Bremer, R. and Jagla, H.-H. (Eds) (2000), Berufsbildung in Gescha¨fts- und Arbeitsprozessen, Donat, Bremen. Dehnbostel, P., Holz, H. and Novak, H. (2001), Mitten im Arbeitsprozeß – Lerninseln, W. Bertelsmann, Bielefeld. Grollmann, Ph. and Rauner, F. (2006), “Einheitlicher Qualifikationsrahmen im Bru¨ gge/Kopenhagen-Prozess zwischen Schulabschluss und Kompetenz”, Die berufsbildende Schule, Vol. 56 Nos 7-8, pp. 159-65. Heursen, G. (1995), “Kompetenz – Performanz”, in Lenzen, D. and Mollenhauer, K. (Eds), Enzyklopa¨die Erziehungswissenschaft, Bd. 1, Theorien und Grundbegriffe der Erziehung und Bildung, Klett, Stuttgart/Dresden, pp. 472-7. Krogoll, T. (1991), “Aufgabenorientiertes Lernen fu¨r die Arbeit”, Berufsbildung, Vol. 11/12 No. 45, pp. 451-4. Lenzen, D. (1973), Didaktik und Kommunikation, Athenaeum, Bodenheim. Luhmann, N. (2002), Das Erziehungssystem der Gesellschaft, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main. Rauner, F. (1999), “Entwicklungslogisch strukturierte berufliche Curricula – Vom Neuling zur reflektierten Meisterschaft”, in Dubs, R. (Ed.), Zeitschrift fu¨r Berufs – und Wirtschaftspa¨dagogik 95, Vol. 3, pp. 424-46. Rohlfing, H. and Schenk, B. (1990), “Einfu¨hrende Lernaufgabe – Erste Erfahrungen in einem integrierten Kollegschulbildungsgang”, Die berufsbildende Schule, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 302-9. Corresponding author Rainer Bremer can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0590.htm

Evaluating progress of European vocational education and training systems: indicators in education Uwe Lauterbach

Evaluating progress of European VET 201

Deutsches Institut fu¨r Internationale Pa¨dagogische Forschung (DIPF), Frankfurt am Main, Germany Abstract Purpose – The quality of an education system or a comparative international assessment refers more and more to quantitative parameters, i.e. “educational indicators”. The paper aims to analyse the structure of several educational indicators and indicator systems and answer the question “What can educational indicators achieve?” Design/methodology/approach – Starting with a general consideration of the term “indicator” the findings are applied to the educational area and the development of educational indicators is analysed critically. Findings – Indicators allow for the illustration of outcomes and of system processes. Beginning in the 1950s, following the empirical turn in research methods, and the growing significance of approaches from economics of education, indicators are now applied in national and international settings. The findings show that the combination of the quantitative and qualitative approach is more successful as the isolated research. Research limitations/implications – The research is based on secondary analysis. A combination of quantitative and qualitative research methodology should be undertaken in following the progress of educational systems. Originality/value – The findings of quantitative research based on educational indicators determine the general public and political discussion and often the discourse in the scientific community. The analysis shows that a critical distance especially when preparing political decisions is a necessary attitude. Keywords Vocational education, European Union, Quality indicators, International organizations Paper type Conceptual paper

1. The significance of indicators 1.1 Indicators as a quantitative parameter for governing system processes The theoretical basis of a national education system and its philosophy constitute crucial factors for its assessment as a unique instance in a real situation. When extending this assessment to several national systems that exist in parallel, at a particular point in time (cross-section), and by observing a longer period of time (longitude) – even for one particular education system only – it will hardly be possible to apply these “soft” factors that are analytical and descriptive as a basis for an assessment that is grounded in defined criteria, and that permits an estimation of the current real situation and the resulting need for action. These interpretations will certainly be criticised right away or even fundamentally doubted. Nowadays, the clients who receive scientific expertises, usually policy-makers, will hardly reach such an assessment if the quality of an education system, or a comparative international assessment, refers to quantitative parameters that make statements on the quality of

Journal of European Industrial Training Vol. 32 No. 2/3, 2008 pp. 201-220 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0309-0590 DOI 10.1108/03090590810861721

JEIT 32,2/3

202

the education systems under inspection, allowing for the illustration of important system processes and changes, i.e. educational indicators. This is not a new challenge to technical science. Ever since technical developments grew denser in the era of Industrialisation indicators have become indispensable here. These parameters are, for instance, used for defining best possible effects of engines, as the engineers and machinists steer their interventions towards optimising the systems on the grounds of these data. Users direct their focus even more towards safety indicators, such as the limit value for boiler pressure on a steam engine manometer. The popularity of indicators is also increasing in economy, where they allow for statements with regard to conditions of specific economic or currency regions. For instance, the EU has established fiscal and monetary Maastricht criteria for the creation of a common currency region. These define for the national economies that: (1) the public deficit should not exceed gross domestic product by more than 3 per cent; and (2) the maximum level of public debts should lie below 60 per cent of the gross domestic product. By keeping to these parameters, and below them, the European policy-makers intend to ensure price stability and prosperity, hence assuring the welfare of the population in the Euro currency area. 1.2 An exact definition of indicator parameters and data assessment including a contextualisation of quantitative results These two examples from distinct areas of life are convincing, and they create a desire to develop quantitative indicators for education systems, too, for governing decision processes, and this idea is supported by educational policy. Indicators that can be handled well and that are internationally comparable are more apt to be used as arguments in educational policy discourse with political laymen than deep-rooted analyses. A closer look at the “transparent” parameters from the technical and economic fields soon illustrates that “handy” indicators and the resulting governing processes need to be critically examined. The indicators of a steam engine that are measured during the technical processes do not, when taken by themselves, allow for any statements on governing processes: for instance, boiler scaling that may lead to great safety risks cannot be ascertained directly. Only an assessment of all indicators, along with a sound knowledge of quality regarding the system of steam engines, will lead to adequate governing instruments. The practice of the Maastricht criteria in the Euro currency area allows for a reference to the maximum of the correct and exact ascertainment of parameters One or the other “offender”, that is a State that fails to comply with the deficit criteria, will remain undiscovered as the assignment of public tasks to the public budgets is heterogeneous. There is thus room for creative interpretation, and diverse resulting macro-economic classifications can be decided upon. This well-known example illustrates the need for an accurate definition of indicators, their exact measurement and clear assignment. These criteria are defined in empirical social research as validity, objectivity, and reliability. Furthermore, these examples point towards the assessment of indicators in the field of education. Results can only be used respectably if their systemic context is taken into account, too, and the observation covers a longer period of time.

1.3 The quality of education systems and the role of indicators The discussion on international comparisons of outcomes in national education systems began in the late 1950s, following the empirical turn in research methods, and the growing significance of educational economic approaches (Holmes, 1971, p. 362), see the large scale assessment performed by the IEA[1] (International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement). Furthermore, case studies and the “indicators of possible outcomes (both of intended and unintended)” (Eckstein, 1988, p. 9) became significant. These included a contribution to narrowing the gap between research and the needs of pedagogical practice, including educational policy and administration (Weinert, 1994, p. 5038). The international importance of quantitative research can be attributed to the rapid growth of national education systems in the 1960s, in consequence of implementing fundamental educational policy targets such as equal opportunities for all and the expansion of education. These new political priorities resulted in a growing need for more information that could be better compared internationally, and data on national education systems. A particular interest was paid to the consistent inequalities for educationally remote classes, new manners of conduct and expectations regarding the education systems, a greater awareness of quality issues in public education sectors, and the search for excellence and effectiveness. The ascertained data were to become the basis for national analyses, cross-national comparisons, and governing processes[2]. Nowadays, these motivations for the development of educational indicators are superposed by economic demands on the education systems. Economic growth and employment increasingly depend on highly qualified populations (human capital). Following this movement towards qualification, educational indicators that provide for cross-national comparisons are an important basis for policy decisions (Bottani and Walberg, 1994, p. 2985). Owing to their significance for society as a whole, these comparisons are not limited to formal education systems. Rather, they extend their focus to the qualification of the whole population. Hence, they integrate lifelong learning and competencies that were informally acquired. Besides these aspects, the chronic shortages in public budgets render focal importance to an efficient use of financial resources. In this respect, education indicators are viewed as an assessment for an economical use of budgets (Bottani and Walberg, 1994, p. 2985) as measured by the output of qualification systems. Policy-makers would like to know if resources are put to an effective use. Some of the important aspects are: the status of quantitative and qualitative capacities of the degree holders, the quality in a cross-national comparison, organisation and financing, statistical data on the participants in the diverse educational careers, organisation of the education process and quality of the results, and the status of the pertinent national education system in a cross-national comparison with regard to these factors. Not only the quantity, but also the quality (in terms of knowledge and skills) of the graduates is of interest. Educational indicators from this area are used in national monitoring, for choosing priorities in governing processes, and for the evaluation of reforms. The system of educational indicators was systematically enhanced on a national and an international scale, initially only by the UNESCO (since 1960) and the OECD (since 1967). These were joined by EU statistics (since 1970) and the World Development Reports published by the World Bank (since 1978). Nowadays, the basis

Evaluating progress of European VET 203

JEIT 32,2/3

204

for governing activities is provided by results from internationally comparative largescale assessments as well as annual publications such as the OECD reports, Education at a Glance, or the EU assessments that are based on indicators, or the education reports in Germany. Educational policy debates continue referring to these sources. Typical governing efforts are not limited to the assignment of financial resources but they also aim at altering soft factors, such as system philosophy or there are efforts at reform measures based on exactly defined indicators. What is the difference between an educational indicator and educational statistical data? Statistical data can turn into indicators if they can be tested against several reference points, such as social standards or regional or national differences. It is always necessary to keep in mind that the educational indicators can merely offer a rough outline of current conditions (Bottani and Walberg, 1994, p. 2986). Similar as in technical science, individual indicators make sense when considered as a starting point to reliable analysis, by tying these indicators to descriptive context variables for further assessments. Results can only be used after a longer period of observation (monitoring). Furthermore, the indicators must be adjusted to the pertinent regions, the national system or the cross-national comparison. Experience with cross-national analyses moreover shows that the planning stage requires a lot of time for the international comparison, as the individual States need to make internal and external adjustments. Further time is required for fine-tuning the methodical instruments and finally, the assessment must be prepared, asserted, implemented and conducted. 2. Standardising national data for cross-national comparisons Data can only be ascertained if their features and dimensions have been defined, these plans have nowadays largely been implemented on a national level. The quality of results suffers from distinct vocational training systems that have been installed in diverse parts of the country, and from the lack of a national standard. Hence, a greater effort concerning standardisation is necessary in Federal States. In cross-national studies, chance often determines whether national statistical data correspond to the required standards. The problem that State borders do not correspond with the issue that is under observation, which seems to occur more frequently due to the growing internationalisation of business enterprises, has been under discussion for quite a while now (Mitter, 1997, p. 1253). The plan to compare indicators from different regions has mainly been promoted by the activities of international organisations, that is UNESCO and OECD, since the 1950s (Dieckmann, 1970, p. 19). This development started when university researchers from the domain of Comparative Education went into competition with mission-oriented research from these international organisations. These “free-lance”, “independent” researchers supported collaboration by founding international associations which became adequate partners to the international organisations. For instance, the IEA, with surveys such as TIMSS (The Third International Mathematic and Science Study) and PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) that became hallmarks of international comparisons of achievement, was founded by free researchers (Nooman, 1973; Loxley, 1994, p. 942; Postlethwaite, 1994, p. 1762). Furthermore, their incentives led to the development of the ISCED classification [International Standard Classification of Education], which is a standardised means of classifying national education careers

(Holmes, 1971, p. 89; Porras-Zu¨niga, 1994, p. 959). These initiatives result from the efforts of researchers at the time to further develop the international comparison in terms of its concept and method, in order to gain internationally comparable data as well as results (Robinsohn, 1992, p. 7). Following comprehensive tasks and the resulting financial demands, the organisations such as OECD nowadays stand for international educational reports by indicators, and international comparisons of achievement, while the UNESCO stands for the ISCED classification system. The ISCED classification has been in use since the 1970s for ordering educational statistics worldwide. It was approved for the first time by the 1975 International Conference on Education in Geneva, a conference for national governments that is held on a regular basis. Over time several adjustments were required, particularly with regard to the growing diversity of educational opportunities. To render the databases and classification systems comparable within the INES framework (Indicators of Education Systems), UNESCO, EUROSTAT and OECD cooperate under the OECD leadership (Steinert and Maier, 2001, p. 366). In 1997 the UNESCO educational statistics division published the ISCED-97, as a collection, collation and dissemination of national and international educational statistics. It has since been adapted by OECD, and several updates have meanwhile been issued under the heading Classifying Educational Programmes, Manual for ISCED-97 – Implementation in OECD Countries[3]. In the meantime the OECD publishes detailed manuals on the classification of educational degrees (OECD, 2004). These overviews allow for internationally comparable categorisations of national educational careers. 3. Examples from educational reporting, quality control and governance of education systems by means of indicators These examples were chosen to illustrate the pertinent structures of quality control and governance by educational indicators. Moreover, I intend to appraise the selection of indicators and the quantitative results, which are based on interpretations, in terms of a contextualisation (Lauterbach, 2003, p.146). In this sense, the following issues are particularly interesting: single nation States with a federal structure (USA, Switzerland, Germany), the OECD as the organisation that is most experienced with applying indicators to educational reporting on an international scale, and the EU, where governing supra-national education policy based on indicators continues to gain significance. By contrast to the OECD, which publishes its results as mere recommendations, the influence of the EU on the national educational systems is much more direct (vocational and higher education), and more goal-oriented. In this case the quality and the development are continuously assessed, for the area of vocational training this is performed in the Lisbon-Copenhagen Process. To make matters more difficult, the distinct structures and philosophies underlying the vocational education and training systems in the 27 EU States do not contribute to facilitating the construction of indicators, the interpretation of consequent results, and the development of governing processes. 3.1 United States of America (USA) There is a tradition to educational reporting by means of indicators in this country, where the main responsibility for education lies with the 50 States. The Union can only influence educational programmes at a limited scale, which includes documentation and statistics (Johnson et al., 1985, p. 311; McNergney et al., 1998, p. 226). The

Evaluating progress of European VET 205

JEIT 32,2/3

206

Conditions of Education (CoE), which have been published for decades by the National Centre for Education Statistics (NCES). This Union organisation can be traced back to the year 1867. The report offers annual comparisons of the quality of the educational systems in the States, and the District of Columbia (Washington, DC). The NCES gathers and publishes information on the status and progress of education in the USA. The congressional authorization for these activities [. . .] that the purpose of the Center is to collect and report [. . .] statistics and Information showing the condition and progress of education in the United States and other nations in order to promote and accelerate the improvement of American education – Section 402(b) of the National Education Statistics Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 9001) (National Centre for Education Statistics, 2005, p. iii).

For example, the 1996 edition of the CoE lists 60 indicators that highlight the status of education in all of the USA. These indicators are meant to enable a comparison of educational achievements between the Federal States. These indicators define the status of quality in education, and they are the means by which the success of educational policy is measured in the individual States, and for the educational programmes issued by the Union. In addition, 1 will discuss what we know about school quality and describe how the conditions facing the schools have changed (Eckstein, 1988, p. iii).

This political perspective and the indicators accordingly, do not normally alter its focus each year, but in periods. These periods themselves are determined by the pedagogical zeitgeist and by “relevant” political topics. Some of the indicators, such as the drop out rate of High School students however, remain consistent due to their fundamental explanatory force. In 1996, educational reporting focused on four current issues: (1) education and worker productivity; (2) preparation for work; (3) minorities in higher education; and (4) teachers’ working conditions. The 60 indicators relating to (A) to (D) are assigned to six topical areas: (1) access, participation, and progress; (2) achievement, attainment, and curriculum; (3) economic and other outcomes of education; (4) size, growth, and output of educational institutions; (5) climate, classrooms, and diversity in educational institutions; and (6) human and financial resources of educational institutions. The indicators are processed for these focal and topical areas of education reporting. High school leavers without a degree (dropout rate) are illustrated by indicator 5 following the remark that the dropout rate is “slowly decreasing” and that the differences between black and white school leavers are growing smaller. In some cases not only US-American, but also international comparisons are performed. This pertains to indicator 20 (reading literacy), or indicator 27 (attainment in higher

education). For indicator 20, internationally binding standards define what is meant by reading literacy, these agreements do exist for higher education, too, by the ISCED classification system (indicator 27). However, this only implies a formal perspective, in relation to the educational institutions and their systemic position, and does not refer to the qualifications that are acquired, and their function in professional occupation. The pronounced analysis and interpretation, which refers to political and societal values, in the COE may easily lead to an emphasis of the results that are desired by politics. This may be justified as besides COE, thee comprehensive and differentiated Digest of Education Statistics (DES) is published by NCES each year. The structure underlying the ascertainment of data, which relates to the individual Federal States, territories and the Union, is continued on a yearly basis so that not only cross-section comparisons are possible, but also longitudinal comparisons can be performed that cover several years. Based on these data the users can appraise the data that are used in COE, and perform contextualised analyses themselves. 3.2 Switzerland The authors of the brochure cited below, from the Swiss Federal Statistical Office (BFS), address the significance of indicators: In analogy to other policy areas, the governance of system processes in the Swiss education system is more and more based on indicators. Nowadays, educational indicators that mainly describe the function of systems are well-founded, their initial purpose is to enable a comparison at international or cantonal level] (Original in German: Bundesamt fu¨r Statistik, 2004, p. 5).

The brochure refers to the OECD works performed since the mid-1980s and the original motivation for developing educational indicators is mentioned, that is the description of national education systems by internationally approved indicators in order to render the structures of national education systems transparent, and allow for an international comparison. This principle of transparency, and the conjunction of context, process and result is based on the idiographic theory approach from comparative education. A diligent description is thus a pre-condition to understanding and comprehending a national education system by external, strange onlookers (Lauterbach, 2003, p. 108). In these times when vast data are easily accessible, transparency seems easy to achieve. Despite the necessary precaution whether this “ideal” framework might not lead to a misjudgement regarding the interpretation of internationally comparable indicators (Lauterbach, 2003, p. 171), the BFS resigns from the transparency approach. It affiliates itself to further considerations by the OECD and the EU, for performing an outcome-oriented and evaluating assessment of educational indicators. Educational results and the way how education systems achieve their educational goals are of focal concern (Original in German: Bundesamt fu¨r Statistik, 2004, p. 5).

The BFS approves of the transition in educational reporting from an approach oriented towards context, process and result to a topical approach as it enables a focus on relevant political questions. The BFS is well balanced in accepting this concept because it does not follow the growing fashion of opting for economic efficiency as the leading argument. While emphasising the adaptivity of the Swiss education system regarding current challenges, it ties this into the central argument of a democratic society, the question

Evaluating progress of European VET 207

JEIT 32,2/3

208

whether the achieved educational outcomes are socially just, equal opportunities constitute a direct criterion. Besides these basic values, current indicators are brought into focus, such as lifelong learning, but also efficiency and innovation in the education system. 3.3 Germany In Germany, there is no tradition of educational reporting based on indicators. Only the international pressure following the large scale assessments by the IEA and the OECD, and the supra-national dynamics that are supported by the Lisbon-Copenhagen Process in the EU made the persons in charge of educational policy issue a first educational report in 2003, which follows a context-process- and result approach (ten years after Switzerland first became active in this area). The education system has been of public interest for a while now, this can in particular be attributed to international comparative assessments such as TIMSS, PISA, IGLU and the internal supplementary study, PISA-E. These imply that we might know something about the status and development of our education system, but a total perspective is lacking. Against this background, the Standing Conference of Ministers of Cultural Affairs (KMK) decided to issue regular reports on the status and development of the education system in Germany in the future (Original in German: Bildungsbericht fu¨r Deutschland, 2003, p. 3).

Since then, a second study has been published in 2006. The construction of indicators is now more strongly based on political objectives, thus there is a closer focus on individual problem areas or positive developments. The situation in Germany with respect to general and vocational education is characterised by a high degree of complexity. No standard reference publication, such as the DES that is issued annually in the USA, is available in Germany. Therefore, the primary challenge and task of educational reporting is constituted by developing a transparency of the system. Indicators must be tied into systemic contexts of educational structures in each of the 16 Federal States and at the level of the state as a whole. The illustration of system transparency is in particular challenged by vocational education and training, adult education and the recognition of informal competencies. 3.4 The European Union (EU) 3.4.1 Political framework and vocational education and training policy. While the use of educational indicators at a national State level usually is meant to support efforts towards quality assurance by this instrument, at the EU level educational indicators are used as parameters for the assessment of successes or failures in supra-national policy. Furthermore, they are intended as a means of rendering the diverse national general and vocational education systems more transparent without resulting in a competition between the individual national concepts. The EU supports and enhances the national endeavours to secure a “high quality” education by promoting collaboration among its 27 member States, and by supporting national States, programmes and measures. The significance of governing instruments, such as the European educational indicators, constitutes a reflex reaction to the targets and the status of general and vocational education in Europe, and the reality found in the member States. To illustrate these correlations, an outline of the policy from the 1950s up to today is presented below.

(1) Stage of convergence. At the time the European Coal and Steel Community had founded in 1951, the general and vocational education systems in the member States were already characterised by great disparities. Ever since, the member States have undertaken a vast number of efforts to harmonise those educational careers that are relevant for entering the labour market. The Treaties of Rome (1957) as the foundation of the European Economic Community did not only lead to a European market in terms of removing trade and production barriers and strengthening the cooperation between national economies. Moreover, the labour market that was immediately affected was incorporated with a demand for international mobility and flexibility[4]. A common educational policy for supporting these goals was not intended. However, articles 118 and 128 offered an opportunity to advance vocational education and training via social policy, which is aimed at improving the conditions of life and work (article 127). Thus, vocational education was the only area of education that allowed for direct measures by the European Commission within the framework of the Social Action Programme. In reality, this policy was never successful. Results from the comparative studies, particularly those that were already commissioned by the European Coal and Steel Community, confirmed over the decades that a convergence of national systems of vocational education and training is not in sight. In most cases, specific national profiles of initial and further training were even enforced. (2) Stage of transparency. In the mid-1990s the failed policy of convergence was substituted for a “policy of transparency” (Frommberger, 2006). The transparency of national systems and a common framework that is binding to all member States is aimed at establishing and recognising formal, non-formal and informal individual educational achievements according to learning outcomes. This process is continued for general and vocational education and training since 1999, on the basis of the EU Council decision on developing new working methods for European collaboration in the area of general and vocational education. The Bologna Process (since 1999) introduced the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) for higher education in Europe. In connection with the provision of Bachelor and Master study courses the foundations are improved for supra-national transparency, the recognition of study achievements and degrees in other countries and hence the mobility of the labour force in Europe. A harmonisation of vocational education and training objectives has been undertaken since the formulation of the Lisbon Strategy (2000), within the framework of the Bruges-Copenhagen-Maastricht-Process. The European Credit Transfer System for Vocational Education and Training (ECVET), which is an equivalent instrument to the ECTS. ECTS and ECVET are to be connected via the European Qualifications Framework, EQF, which covers both higher education and vocational education and training[5]. 3.4.2 Educational indicators as an instrument for analysis, quality and governance. The fact that vocational education and training efforts in the EU were to no avail for decades indicates that this field is difficult to introspect. The political agents (Council, Commission, and Parliament) need to rely on information that is difficult to obtain for their governing decisions. Since these data are tied into complex relations, there

Evaluating progress of European VET 209

JEIT 32,2/3

210

nowadays seems to be a didactic necessity to plausible indicators that are relevant to political decision-making as well as for a supra-national agreement. Prior to this stage, it was necessary to conduct comparative studies in the initial stage (which occasionally lasted several decades) in order to ascertain overviews of vocational education and training systems and occupational degrees in the member States – including assessments of the theory of convergence of national systems. Furthermore, a statistical system was introduced in cooperation with the pertinent organisation, EUROSTAT, and statistical standards were developed[6]. With new members since 1973 and the large expansion in 2004 the situation grew even more complex. In parallel to political efforts the European centre for the promotion of vocational education and training (Centre europeen pour le developpement de la formation professionnelle, CEDEFOP) began to install an educational research that subscribes to the European concept of thought that is systematically described in the European Research Reports in VET)[7]. The quality of vocational education and training is a crucial topic here. Since apprenticeship and the alternating instruction are repeatedly highlighted as a role model for vocational education policy in the member States, an analysis assessed how “up-to-date” the concept of apprenticeship actually is. The example of a comparative analysis of apprenticeship in the First Research Report demonstrate the erroneous interpretations that occur if little consideration is paid to national systemic contexts and characteristics of the educational streams that are observed in the area of apprenticeship. Several EU member States were analysed by the educational indicator “modernity of apprenticeship” to assess if the concept of apprenticeship could be installed in innovative branches, and a further indicator was used to assess whether the graduates from these educational careers enter further training. The general factor of comparison (“tertium comparationis”[8]) is constituted by data on the total working population. This is followed by a selection that relates to the English term “apprenticeship”. In consequence, the following educational streams are subsumed under the category of apprenticeship: the mainstream in Germany, margins in France, Portugal, Spain and Greece, the alternative schools in the Netherlands and Austria (i.e. as opposed to full-time vocational schools), modern apprenticeship in the UK and the labour market-oriented measures in Italy. Neither the integration of these streams into the system as a whole, or its underlying philosophy, are acknowledged appropriately. A result following the metric comparison that is based on two educational indicators of quality consequently proves that apprenticeship is on its way to becoming a cul de sac. A brief reflection on the categorisation that was performed prior to the metric comparison leads to the conclusion that the assessment may follow a logical calculus, but it makes no sense in the end: the development of the two educational indicators on the basis of the term apprenticeship, which is hardly specified, was not conducted in a reliable manner. The author seems to have intended a confirmation of existing prejudices by a seemingly neutral empirical study. This process can be observed in comparative analyses of educational indicators every now and again. Following these initial attempts, the governance and quality assurance of education were rendered more dynamic by the Lisbon Declaration (2000) and its specifications by the Barcelona Declaration (2002) and the Copenhagen Declaration (2002). These instruments of an open coordinating method, such as benchmarks, indicators, the exchange of experience and peer reviews aim at a dissemination of proven practices

and at a convergence of the most important EU targets (EU Council, 2002), they further intend to support the member States in the step-by-step development of their policies. In a first step the European Benchmarks as a hands-on policy tool were put into practice[9], within the framework of progress reports on the Lisbon Process[10]. These educational indicators constitute an implementation of the Lisbon Declaration on general and vocational education, and they formulate quantified objectives that are to be achieved by the year 2010. The relate to: . investment in general and vocational education; . school drop-outs in terms of compulsory school education; . higher education graduates in mathematics, the sciences and technical science; . completion of upper secondary school grade; . key competencies; and . participation in lifelong learning. The progress reports record these benchmarks for the individual member States, and for the EU as a whole. They are compared with results for the OECD countries, the USA and Japan. A ranking of EU member States is performed for each indicator. In addition, the three countries with the best results are evaluated according to three methods of assessment (last year, average in the last five or ten years respectively). Nevertheless, this ranking of EU countries raises a problem as it is no longer concerned with recommendations for governing processes, but with naming a “victor” in the “combined assessment” for national education systems (general, vocational and higher education). Only eight out of 15 participating member States are among the “best achievers”. A first introspection of context variables would soon have made clear that even though the statistics are true, the priority of vocational education lies, for instance, in the areas of higher education or continuing education, because the upper secondary level does not integrate an extensive, highly challenging vocational training, and vice versa. This soon explains the “winner” indicators of Germany, Ireland or the UK. The first two countries, Denmark and Sweden, bear the advantage of being fairly straightforward, and the profiles of their education systems are congruent to the six “hands-on” education indicators. The EU benchmarks are exploited at a national level when this seems opportune. When taking a closer look at these findings and comparing them with the OECD, divergences are apparent that should be a warning on statements. The EU statistics for the completion of the upper secondary school level offer several educational indicators (EG, Eurostat, 2005, p. 311) – for instance, the school degree of persons aged 20 to 24. The ranking for Germany is different depending on the chosen indicator. In the issue of Education at a Glance (OECD, 2005, p. 40) the German results for the 2003 upper secondary graduation rate occupy a top position. These results can only lead to a demand for a critical evaluation of educational indicators and for a recurrence to statistical data prior to an evaluation. These examples point out the correlations between political frameworks, benchmarks and educational illustrators as well as their evaluation and ranking. It is further evident that without a contextualisation of results in the national States, and without the definition of functional equivalences for the miscellaneous concepts of

Evaluating progress of European VET 211

JEIT 32,2/3

212

vocational education, (including higher education systems), reliable and scientifically grounded results can hardly be expected[11]. 3.4.3 Foundations of a common reference framework for quality assurance in vocational education and training in the EU and its Member States. In the meantime, the EU Commission, its Council and the Parliament have considered this area in more detail. Within the Bruges-Copenhagen-Maastricht Process the European Commission installed a technical working group for the quality of vocational education, i.e. the Technical Working Group Quality Assurance in VET, TGW], this group published an annual progress report on the quality of vocational education and training in the years 2002 to 2004. Furthermore, a series of other documents was published[12]. The documents operationalise the objectives formulated in the Bruges-Copenhagen-Maastricht Process, in order to support the individual member States in their establishment of quality assurance systems[13]. The central document for supporting these activities is called the “Fundamentals of a ‘Common Quality Assurance Framework’ for Quality of VET in Europe, CQAF” issued by the TWG in 2004[14]. This paper presents a definition of indicators for monitoring vocational education and training systems in the member States. Related general objectives are determined in the following indicators: . heightening employability; . improving the harmonisation of supply and demand; and . promoting access to lifelong vocational education and training, particularly for disadvantaged groups. The scope of these output-oriented criteria for quality assurance refers to national VET systems as well as individual VET providers. The document focuses on suggestions for the process of quality assurance including: . a model for planning, executing, evaluating and checking the systems of the member States; and . process methods such as quality criteria and self evaluation (system and provider level), monitoring system (with reference to State regulation and administration bodies). The individual areas are summarised according to a cohesive catalogue of general quantitative and qualitative indicators. This suggestion can only be put into practice after a phase of intensive research[15]. Until then, the European Benchmark system I described earlier will remain a reality with its rough, non-contextualised indicators. 3.5 Organization for economic co-operation and development (OECD) The contribution of national education systems to the economic success of a national economy is undisputed. Along with the assignment of social-societal positions in relation to educational degrees, this constitutes a main reason for the increasing significance of national education systems regarding national and international analyses (Bottani and Walberg, 1994, p. 2984). Within the framework of global national economies, the correlation between economic prosperity and a high level of

qualification in the population constitutes an international advantage in competitions. Following this framework of globalisation, an assessment of national education and vocational education systems accompanies this process as a governing instrument that is widespread in both industrial and developing countries, particularly in terms of large-scale assessments. Hence, reports on the success and quality, but also the failure of national educational systems, have become a matter of fact. International organisations such as OECD and UNESCO can take credit for their work in these processes. Since the 1960s they have created instruments, by way of educational indicators, for observing, analysing and comparing this global process, as well as national and supra-national areas. In the late 1980s educational indicators reached a status of development that enables policy-makers to apply them to decisions in governing processes. Reference publications such as the “Education at a Glance – OECD Indicators”, which is issued on a yearly basis since 1992, are highly significant in this context. Moreover, the political analyses and outlooks relate to these publications directly. The EU Benchmarks are still far from reaching such a status as a reliable basis for national governing decisions. The worldwide use of the OECD indicators as a data base and reference system clearly illustrates that national societies, economic regions and labour markets continue to erode due to their international opening, thus they become more comparable. While until the 1970s decision-making was based on value orientations these are more and more substituted by educational indicators. These are meant to offer a far more “neutral” survey of national education levels and the qualifications in a population. In this sense priority is given to economic aspects of education (utilising the acquired knowledge) as well as the outcomes of national education systems with regard to achievements, that is knowledge and skills, in an international comparison: Governments are paying increasing attention to international comparisons as they search for effective policies that enhance individuals’ social and economic prospects, provide incentives for greater efficiency in schooling and help to mobilise resources to meet rising demands. As part of its response, the OECD Directorate for Education devotes a major effort to the development and analysis of the quantitative, internationally comparable indicators that it publishes annually in Education at a Glance. These indicators enable governments to see their education-systems in the light of other countries’ performances and, together with OECD’s country policy reviews, are designed to support and review the efforts that governments are making towards policy reform. Education at a Glance addresses the needs of a range of users, from governments seeking to learn policy lessons and academics requiring data for further analysis to the general public wanting to monitor how its nation’s schools are progressing in producing world-class students. The publication examines the quality of learning outcomes, the policy levers and contextual factors that shape these outcomes, and the broader private and social returns that accrue to investments in education (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), 2005, p. 3).

This OECD policy does not constitute a solo practice of the OECD headquarters in Paris. Rather, the indicators are processed in the INES network (Indicators of Education Systems). The individual member States support this construction of educational indicators for focal areas of education with sometimes alternating foci: demographic and socio-economic context, expenditure in education and human resources, costs and outcomes/returns, participation in education, decision makers and decision structures, student achievement and school degrees, participation in

Evaluating progress of European VET 213

JEIT 32,2/3

employment. The support and promotion of research activities and the introduction and practical test of innovations in education are conducted by the Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI), an OECD subdivision that was founded in 1968. CERI also conducts the OECD project for international indicators.

214

4 What can educational indicators achieve? A financially exhaustive international system of educational indicators cannot aim at being the basis for ranking national education systems and spotlighting the “best system”. Instead, educational policy and administration should be enabled to gain a deeper understanding of those factors that influence educational quality. Thereby, they can obtain diverse opportunities for governing educational systems (Oelkers, 2000b, p. 1). Oelkers points out that governing (in terms of steering) requires a movable unit that reacts according to instruction – such an idea can hardly be followed considering the complexity of our subject. Education systems do not constitute a closed unit that reacts according to a command (Oelkers, 2000b, p. 1). Despite similar system organisation charts, individual differences exist as they are determined by culture. In this context it should suffice to point out the distinct positions of vocational education systems in the individual countries. For instance, Germany places VET careers at the upper secondary level, or “somewhere” in the tertiary sector, between the upper secondary level and higher education while in the USA or England a tertiary level will always be apt, often even the higher education status. The meaning of apprenticeships or the dual system, too, depends on the national contexts of education systems as well as many decisions on values that express cultural ties. Germany’s geographical neighbours have developed distinct systems of apprenticeships, see France, the Netherlands, Denmark, Poland, the Czech Republic, Austria, Switzerland, Luxemburg and Belgium. The pertinent logics of systems further indicate that the education systems constitute relatively self-contained units with regard to their educational levels and areas of education. All of these factors are crucial to the definition and interpretation of educational indicators: . Can the quality of a VET programme actually be assessed by indicators such as the successful number of participants or value of the degree certificate or does it not rather concern the clients in terms of the labour market and the occupational use? Would it not make more sense to assess transitions, and interview and evaluate the clients, i.e. the future employers and the graduates? . How should the indicators be interpreted? Do large class sizes indicate the poor quality of a national education system, or does a high expenditure regarding the social product indicate the high quality of a national education system? Obviously, there are no straightforward answers to these questions. We can always find national examples that prove the contrary. This takes us close to an aspect that should always be considered, i.e. a long-term observation of educational indicators and their “sluggishness” in terms of a capacity for change with regard to governing decisions. The utilisation of results from educational indicators for governing processes requires an immense time of planning and the governance of many elements of a system, such as the curriculum, teacher training, the system of tests and the influence on other aspects of an educational system.

Following the theory of cultural relativity (Lauterbach, 2003, p. 142) the results might lead to the conclusion that international statistics and educational indicators should always be put into perspective due to the required consideration of national contexts, hence, they should be viewed with scepticism and they cannot really be assessed in a comparison. Even sceptics answer this argument when using educational indicators by pointing out that the internationalisation leads to standards in educational offerings, and to international competition (Oelkers, 2000a, p. 12). Therefore, educational indicators are developed that enable an illustration of the continuous process of quality assurance and its competition. A critical distance to the assurance of quality by means of educational indicators cannot only be observed in educational research, but it is also subject to public debate and to policy whenever the results from an international comparison do not seem to fit into the national “landscape”. This distance is soon given up and a contrary position is taken when the findings are suited to shed a positive light on a national education policy, in this case usually only those results that are particularly good are named, and only those countries are referred to that match the effect. We thus address the role of educational indicators in the daily business of politics, and their selection and use for political action[16]. The reliability of educational indicators is therefore not supported by presenting their results on a platter in a ranking, as this is the case in the example quoted above, i.e. the European Benchmarks. On the other hand, the contextualised OECD indicators were perceived in selective fashion in Germany (relating to one school year), because the governance of the so-called “higher education quota” and an increase of secondary school degrees that qualify for entering higher education were considered a major federal educational policy goal in Germany in 2003. Further similar examples might be supplied as extracts from context, as the complexity and diversity of an educational system leave only limited information to an educational indicator. When developing and using educational indicators and interpreting their results, educational researchers should therefore always keep in mind (Bottani and Walberg, 1994, p. 2985) that policy-makers will interpret the results from this research without considering the precautions and arguments voiced by the researchers themselves, in their own terms. Usually, policy-makers will prepare a short-term goal, in better cases a strategic governing decision. In order to meet these circumstances, and to balance the single dimension of an educational indicator, it is necessary to construct the whole system of indicators in a way that it contains comparable and complete information. Ideally, a system of indicators should provide information regarding the relations of the individual indicators, and create a full perspective of the education system that is analysed. The information that is provided by this interaction is greater than the sum of data derived from the individual educational indicators. For such a full perspective, the indicators are connected logically, empirically or politically. This connection is based on a model or a framework. These describe in theory how an education system should function. The framework itself contains a fundamental assessment of the relevance of indicators, and it constitutes the basis of a system of indicators, for instance as to the current situation of a problem area or for future developments. Moreover, analyses on current or prospective situations can be performed. If fundamental features of education systems are observed over a longer period of time by means of defined indicators, tendencies can be recognised and described. It is

Evaluating progress of European VET 215

JEIT 32,2/3

216

also possible to use educational indicators for describing effects that are grounded in specific political governance decisions, such as the efforts towards improving the situation of schools. Nevertheless, it is impossible to state a direct causal relation between the input and outcome of a political decision owing to the complexity of the situation. Coming back to our original hypothesis whether it is possible to assess the progress of European vocational education systems, we must ask the following questions prior to operationalising: “What is progress”, “What are the national vocational education systems?” After a consensus has been agreed upon for the 27 EU States, it will surely be possible to find indicators. However, this thematic input-output approach (which aims at relating vocational education to its results), requires an indicator-based system of educational reporting following the paradigm of transparency, process, and context, see, for example, the USA with its Digest of Education Statistics. Despite the many precautions we can conclude that educational indicators contribute important information to educational policy, and they provide an incentive to reform actions. However, it is not possible to refer to indicators directly and to quote them as evidence in terms of an exact interpretation of self-contained processes, a current situation or a governing activity. Educational indicators have created a fundamentally new understanding of the functioning of an education system, and achieved a lasting discussion on what a nation expects from its education system and how educational objectives may be achieved by altering existing conditions. Notes 1. For the IEA see Lauterbach (2003, p. 78); Lauterbach and Hellwig (2001, p. 359). 2. For the distinction of international and cross national comparison, (Lauterbach, 2003, p. 138). See also Maurice’ comments on cross-national comparisons: If in many cases references to micro and macro levels can be found, these levels do not really connect. They are placed in opposition and brought together “mechanically” rather than “organically”. They serve societal context conditions or they often provide a general analytical framework, a cultural context that allows for deducting observed differences. In other words: At best this is a description that permits an assignment of the investigated object to a national context. The observed similarities and differences are directly related to this context. Hence, the comparison is limited to a description, without interpreting or explaining the similarities or differences- Maurice. 3. Original document, UNESCO International Standard of Classification of Education, INCED 1997. Available at: www.uis.unesco.org/ev.php?ID ¼ 3813_201&ID2 ¼ DO_TOPIC. For the classification of degrees in European countries, see Eurydice: European Glossary on education, examinations, qualifications and titles – Second edition Volume 1, European glossary on education, available at: www.eurydice.org/portal/page/portal/Eurydice/ showPresentation?pubid ¼ 046EN. See also OECD publications such as the Handbook for Internationally Comparable Education Statistics (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), 2004), and Education at a Glance. This publication provides a reasoned assignment of national educational careers to ISCED standards. 4. For a good overview of policy developments in thee area of promoting “mobility” since the foundation of the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Economic Community, see Frommberger (2006). 5. See EU web site, “Towards a European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning”, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/2010/consultations_en.html

6. Key data on education in the EU since 1994, available at: www.eurydice.org/portal/page/ portal/Eurydice 7. Tessaring (1998); Descy and Tessaring (2001); Descy and Tessaring (2005). 8. Two objects are only equal with regard to specific features. These are analysed by a particular interest (research question), i.e. a third, external dimension known as Iertium comparationis – It is differentiated in terms of the intention and the basis of the comparison hypothetically (assumed equality), Lauterbach (2003, p. 130). 9. Benchmarks concern the construction of a relation between internal findings (working results) and external data that are used as a reference that can be compared in a meaningful way. Benchmarking can be performed at different levels, e.g. students in a class, class-school year, school in comparison with other, similar schools. 10. European Commission (2002): “European benchmarks for general and vocational education”. 11. For the area of vocational education the concept of functional equivalence enables us to equate differences with regard to the function at the workplace. The comparison of four economically prosperous regions in Germany, Italy, France and Spain with similar economic structures rendered clear that it is possible to “produce” formally distinct human resources in four different education systems and their distinct political, cultural and historical contexts (Lauterbach, 2003, p. 103). 12. The TWG was installed in 2002 by the General Directorate for Education of the EU Commission to advance the development and implementation of common objectives in the area of vocational education and training, it was commissioned until the end of 2004. Its tasks included the documentation of the current state of affairs, a development of quality development, a construction and description of quality indicators for VET at system level, and the design of a general reference framework for developing and reforming quality in VET systems, the Common Quality Assurance Framework. Moreover, the group had to describe methods and instruments for supporting self-evaluation and quality assurance. For a full documentation, see Virtual Community an Quality Assurance in VET: http:// communities.trainingvillage.gr/quality 13. These documents can be accessed via the web site, available at: http://communities. trainingvillage.gr/quality, a simple registration procedure is required. 14. See www.bmbfde/puh/alleemeine 15. See Jens Henrik Haahr, Hanne Shapiro, Signe Sorensen, Danish Technological Institute (managing partner) Cathleen Stasz, Erik Frinking, Christian van’t Hof, RAND Europe Francis Green, Ken Mayhew. Rosa Fernandez, SKOPE (2004) Defining a Strategy for the Direct Assessment of Skills. This study supplies an overview of Large Scale Assessment approaches and practices for the area of adult education. 16. This long-standing phenomenon is known in comparative educational research as “learning from abroad”, “best practice”, “international argument”, etc. (Lauterbach, 2003, p. 99). References Bildungsbericht fu¨r Deutschland. Erste Befunde (2003), Hermann Avenarius; Hartmut Ditton: Hans Do¨bert; Klaus Klemm; Eckhard Klieme: Matthias Ru¨rup; Heinz E. Tenorth:, Horst Weishaupt; Manfred Weiss, Leske þ Budrich, Wiesbaden, p. 364 S. Bottani, N. and Walberg, H.J. (1994), “International Educational Indicators”, in Husen, T. and Postlethwaite, T.N. (Eds), The International Encyclopaedia of Education, Pergamon, Oxford, pp. 2984-9. Bundesamt fu¨r Statistik (BFS) – Schweiz (2004), Bildungssystem Schweiz: ausgewa¨hlte Indikatoren, Schlu¨sselstellen des Bildungserfolgs – ein kantonaler Vergleich, Neucha¨tel.

Evaluating progress of European VET 217

JEIT 32,2/3

218

Descy, P. and Tessaring, M. (2001), Second report an vocational training research in Europe, Synthesis report. Descy, P. and Tessaring, M. (2005), Third report an vocational training research in Europe. Synthesis report. Dieckmann, B. (1970), Zur Strategie des systematischen internationalen Vergleichs, Klett Verlag, Stuttgart. Eckstein, M.A. (1988), “Concepts and theories in comparative education”, in Postlethwaite, T.N. (Ed.), The Encyclopaedia of Comparative Education and National Systems of Education, Pergamon, Oxford. Europa¨ische Gemeinschaften, Kommission, Eurydice, Eurostat (2005), Schlu¨sselzahlen zum Bildungswesen in Europa 2005, Luxembourg. 401 S (Amt fu¨r amtliche Vero¨ffentlichungen der Europa¨ischen Gemeinschaften). Europa¨ische Gemeinschaften, Rat (2002), “Detailliertes Arbeitsprogramm zur Umsetzung der Ziele der Systeme der allgemeinen und beruflichen Bildung in Europa”, 2002/C 142/01), Amtsblatt der Europa¨ischen Gemeinschaften C 142/1 vom 14.6.2002, DE. 22 S. Frommberger, D. (2006), “Europa¨ische Union: Berufsbildungspolitik (1), Aktuelle Situation und historische Entwicklung”, in Lauterbach, U. (Ed.), Internationales Handbuch der Berufsbildung (Loseblattsammlung), W. Bertelsmann, Bielefeld. Holmes, B. (1971), “Comparative education”, in Deighton, L.C. (Ed.), The Encyclopaedia of Education – Vol. 2, Macmillan, New York, NY, pp. 357-63. Johnson, J., Collins, H.W., Dupuis, V.L. and Johansen, J.H. (1985), Introduction to the Foundations of American Education, Allyn and Bacon, Boston. MA. Lauterbach, U. (2003), Vergleichende Berufsbildungsforschung. Theorien. Methodologien und Ertrag am Beispiel der Vergleichenden Berufs- und Wirtschaftspa¨dagogik mit Bezug auf die korrespondierende Disziplin Comparative Education/Vergleichende Erziehungswissenschaft, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden. Lauterbach, U. and Hellwig, W. (2001), “VET research in other European and non-European countries”, in Descy, P. and Tessaring, M. (Eds), Training in Europe. Second Report on Vocational Training Research in Europe 2000: Background Report, Volume 3, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, pp. 319-73. Loxley, W. (1994), “Comparative and international education: organizations and institutions”, in Husen, T. and Postlethwaite, T.N. (Eds), The International Encyclopaedia of Education, Pergamon, Oxford, pp. 933-42. McNergney, R.F. and Herbert, J.M. (1998), Foundations of Education – The Challenge of Professional Practice, Allyn und Bacon, Boston, MA. Mitter, W. (1997), “Pa¨dagogik. vergleichende”, in Lenzen, D. (Ed.), Pa¨dagogische Grundbegriffe, Rowohlt Verlag, Reinbek, pp. 1246-60. National Centre for Education Statistics (2005), The Condition of Education, Washington, DC, (from 1984). Nooman, R. (1973), “Comparative education methodology of the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA)”, in Edwards, R. (Ed.), Relevant Methods in Comparative Education, UNESCO Institute for Education, Hamburg, pp. 199-207. Oelkers, J. (2000a), “Schule und Bildung im Prozess der Globalisierung”, speech, 22 May, available at: www.paed.unizh.ch/ap/home/vortraege.html Oelkers, J. (2000b), “U¨ber die Steuerung von Bildungssystemen”, paper presented at the Conference Bildungsindikatoren – Nutzung und Nutzen, organised by Bundesamt fu¨r Statistik, 28 August, available at: www.paed.unizh.ch/ap/home/vortraege.html

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) (2004), OECD Handbook of Internationally Comparative Education Statistics – Concepts, Standards, Definitions and Classifications, OECD, Paris, available at: www.oecd.org/ Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) (2005), Education at a Glance – OECD Indicators, OECD, Paris, pp. 2000 ff. Porras-Zriihiga, J. (1994), “Comparative statistics in education”, in Husen, T. and Postlethwaite, T.N. (Eds), The International Encyclopaedia of Education, Pergamon, Oxford, pp. 958-64. Postlethwaite, T.N. (1994), “Educational achievement – comparative studies”, in Husen, T. and Postlethwaite, T.N. (Eds), The International Encyclopaedia of Education, Pergamon, Oxford, pp. 1762-9. Robinsohn, S.B. (1992), “Comparative education. A basic approach”, in Robinsohn, H. (Ed.), A Selection of Writings, Magnes Press, Jerusalem. Steinert, B. and Maier, H. (2001) in Lauterbach, U. (Ed.), Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), pp. 366-7. Tessaring, M. (1998), Report on Vocational Training Research and Development in Europe, Synthesis report. Weinert, F.E. (1994), “Research into practices: translating”, in Husen, T. and Postlethwaite, T.N. (Eds), The International Encyclopaedia of Education, Pergamon, Oxford, pp. 5038-43.

Further reading Europa¨ische Gemeinschaften, Statistisches Amt (eurostat) (1995), Schlu¨sselzahlen zum Bildungswesen in der Europa¨ischen Union – Ausgabe 1994, 110 S. Europa¨ische Gemeinschaften, Statistisches Amt (eurostat) (1996), Schlu¨sselzahlen zum Bildungswesen in der Europa¨ischen Union – Ausgabe 1995, Vol. 183, 183 S,. Europa¨ische Gemeinschaften, Statistisches Amt (eurostat) (1997), Bildung in der Europa¨ischen Union, Daten und Kennzahlen 1996, Luxembourg, 349 S. (Themenkreis 3. Bevo¨lkerung und soziale Bedingungen, Reihe A: Jahrbu¨cher und ja¨hrliche Statistiken. Haider, G. (2001), “System-Monitoring und Qualita¨tsentwicklung in der Schule”, Salzburger Beitra¨ge zur Erziehungswissenschaft, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 5-19. Hegelheimer, A. (1971), Berufsbildung und Arbeitswelt. Berufsbildungsforschung, Ziele – Methoden – Forschungsprogramm. Schriftenreihe des Bundesministeriums fu¨r Arbeit und Sozialordnung, Heft 17, Stuttgart u.a.: Kohlhammer. Hellwig, W. and von Kopp, B. (Eds.) (2001), Innovationen nationaler Berufsbildungssysteme von Argentinien bis Zypern – Berufsbildungsprofile im Blickfeld des internationalen Fachkra¨fteaustausches (IFKA), Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, BadenBaden. Internationales Handbuch der Berufsbildung (IHBB) (2006), “Deutsches Institut fu¨r Internationale Pa¨dagogische Forschung”, Herausgegeben von Uwe Lauterbach (DIPF) in Zusammenarbeit mit Felix Rauner (Universita¨t Bremen) und Botho von Kopp (DIPF). Bielefeld: Bertelsmann. 1995 ff. 30. Erga¨nzungslieferung 2006 (Loseblattsammlung, 3 Ba¨nde, ca. 4 400 S.). Lauterbach, U. (1994), “Apprenticeship, history and development of”, in Husen, T. and Postlethwaite, T.N. (Eds), The International Encyclopaedia of Education, Pergamon, Oxford, pp. S310-S318. Maurice, H. (1991), “Methodische Aspekte internationaler Vergleiche. Zum Ansatz des gesellschaftlichen Effekts”, in Heidenreich, M. and Schmidt, G. (Eds), International vergleichende Organisationsforschung, Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen, pp. 82-90.

Evaluating progress of European VET 219

JEIT 32,2/3

National Centre for Education Statistics (2003), Digest of Education Statistics, National Centre for Education Statistics, Washington DC, available at: http://nces.ed.gov/ (from 1998). Scholz, B. (1994), Die berufliche Bildung in westeuropa¨ischen La¨ndern unter dem Gesichtspunkt der Vereinheitlichung, Lang, Frankfurt am Main. 164 S. (Europa¨ische Hochschulschriften. Reihe XI Pa¨dagogik, Bd./Vol 597).

220

About the author Uwe Lauterbach has worked as a senior researcher in the German Institute for International Educational Research (Centre for Planning and Financing in Education) for over 20 years. He is the Editor of the International Handbook of TVET (Internationales Handbuch der Berufsbildung, IHBB); His main research interests lie in the following areas: Systems of TVET; Apprenticeship; Comparative Education; European VET and programmes. Uwe Lauterbach can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0590.htm

Vocational education and training in Europe An alternative to the European qualifications framework?

VET in Europe

221

ITB Working Group Institute of Technology & Education, Bremen University, Bremen, Germany Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to address the development of a European architecture of vocational education and promotes and alternative proposal. Design/methodology/approach – This paper is the result of discussions of researchers in the Institut Technik und Bildung on a European Qualification Framework. Findings – The paper provides an alternative approach to the European Qualifications Framework that accepts learning in professional and occupational practice as a form of learning in its own right. Research limitations/implications – Even though the European Council has made a decision on the adoption of the EQF, this paper is a worthwhile contribution to the further dialogue that emphasises the notion of learning in settings of professional and occupational practice. Practical implications – The practical question arises if the accreditation and assessment methods for learning through experience on the one hand and learning in formalised settings on the other can be the same. Originality/value – The paper provides an alternative approach to the European Qualifications Framework and will be of interest to those in that field. Keywords European Union, Qualifications, Vocational training, Organizational structures Paper type Conceptual paper

1. The common roots of European VET: re-establishing vocational education and training between divergence and convergence Depending on the temporal perspective under which the development of vocational education and raining in Europe is viewed, the assessment of the extent and difficulty of the task of setting up a European space for vocational education leads to quite different conclusions. If the period prior to the emergence of the European nation-states is included into the historical retrospect, the education of master craftsmen within the framework of apprenticeship training arises as one common European tradition in vocational education and training. It was only upon the enforcement of the economic system of mercantilism that the travelling of craftsmen, which was an integral part of this European tradition that contributed to the widening of one’s horizon in any regard, was impeded by the increasingly impermeable borders between nation-states. The development of the European nation-states and of national economies were the most important factors that contributed to the establishment of highly diversified systems of The ITB Working Group consists of Graham Attwell, Rainer Bremer, Ludger Deitmer, Philip Grollmann, Bernd Haasler, Ines Herrmann, Felix Rauner and Georg Spo¨ttl

Journal of European Industrial Training Vol. 32 No. 2/3, 2008 pp. 221-234 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0309-0590 DOI 10.1108/03090590810861730

JEIT 32,2/3

222

vocational education and training for a period of about 300 years (Hanf and Greinert, 2004). Academic education after the establishment of universities and the academic system of science and learning was oriented towards internationality from the very beginning. The relatively easy exchange of high school students, undergraduates, graduate students and scientists as well as the relatively unproblematic standardisation of academic programmes within the so-called Bologna process give evidence of this fact in the most convincing way. In vocational education and training, on the contrary, the situation is completely different. The tradition of apprenticeship training and further education of master craftsmen and technicians, as it has remained in practice in certain central European states, finds itself in competition with school-based systems of VET and marketoriented schemes of qualifications based on modularised systems of certification. The processes of internationalisation in virtually all social spheres, especially in the domains of technological and economic development, as well as the creation of a single European economic area and labour market require the establishment of VET structures for the middle-level employment sector. The time when vocational education was targeting predominantly regional labour markets has passed once and for all. The interdependency of industries all over Europe and beyond requires comparable schemes of organisation and qualification. The so-called ban on harmonisation stipulated in the European treaties with regard to the educational systems of the Member States cannot come into effect, given the close interrelationship between educational and employment systems as well as the crucial importance of VET for the competitiveness of the European economy. Thus, the initiative of European education ministers towards the development of a European Qualifications Framework EQF) gives expression to an ongoing process of European integration driven by economic and technological development and promoted by the political project of the European Union: “VET is seen as a means of up-skilling the workforce, changing work practice and as a motor of innovation. Governments see VET as a means of increasing competitiveness, employment and growth by securing the supply of skills to the economy”[1]. 2. A European Qualifications Framework As the national traditions of vocational education and training have diverged from each other quite far, the establishment of an EQF is of particular importance. An instrument of this kind would help to compare the different forms of vocational education in the EU Member States against the background of a common measurement scale. 2.1 Qualification levels in the employment systems As a first approach to the notion of qualification levels it is sensible to draw on the results of labour market and qualification research. Accordingly, one can distinguish three to four different levels in nearly all sectors of the employment system: (1) unskilled and semi-skilled workers; (2) skilled workers (employees with intermediate qualifications); and (3) highly qualified employees (employees with a university degree).

In small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) research it is quite common to draw a distinction within the intermediate sector between skilled workers and employees on the one hand and professionals with management responsibilities such as masters, technicians and Fachwirte on the other. In most of the craft trades as well as in other parts of the SME sectors there exist in fact only two levels of qualifications, namely, skilled workers and masters/technicians. Important examples for this situation are car vendors and maintenance services, the construction sector and large parts of the mechanical engineering industry. During the past two decades considerable changes have occurred on the level of unskilled and semi-skilled workers. The proportion of unskilled and semi-skilled workers has continuously declined. It is expected by labour market research that in the long run a figure will be reached that is considerably below 10 per cent for semi-skilled workers. However, there is a huge variance between economic sectors and enterprises. The skill requirements for semi-skilled workers in the mechanical engineering sector, for instance, have clearly increased. The proportion of semi-skilled workers in highly developed national economies has declined: . due to an ongoing process of automatisation; and . due to the relocation of strongly assembly-based enterprises into countries with lower wage levels. In general, the employees affected perform highly specialised and quite demanding tasks that cannot simply be located within existing occupational profiles and formal curricula. These workers qualify for their jobs exclusively via in-company training, and there is no alternative to the established practice of “training on the job”. Therefore, the integration of semi-skilled workers into a European Qualifications Framework is hardly possible[2]. Conclusion. The results of labour market and qualification research suggest a vertical differentiation into four qualification levels: (1) unskilled and semi-skilled workers; (2) intermediate level 1; (3) intermediate level 2; and (4) highly qualified employees. 2.2 Vocational qualification and competence The notion of qualification denotes all those skills that are objectively necessary to master the tasks inherent in the work process. This is why the term “skill requirements” is frequently used. Competences, on the other hand, denote the subjective prerequisites that employees possess and that enable them to meet the objective skill requirements. The demands put on the skills of the workforce by the work processes can be investigated by means of work process analyses. What is decisive as an intervening variable is the social organisation of work, i.e. the definition of tasks and thus the organisation of the work process. This relationship can be demonstrated using the example of the car service sector. The FORCE sector survey came to the result that, e.g. in Greece there were more than 13 different occupational profiles in this sector, whereas in the USA the same tasks were fulfilled by only one “all-round” mechanic (car mechatronic). This means that it is not so much technology

VET in Europe

223

JEIT 32,2/3

224

that serves as a criterion for the definition of skill requirements, but the interplay between work organisation, subject of work and the occupational competence of the employees. With regard to the definition of vocational qualifications in the shape of occupational profiles there is thus a considerably broad scope of discretion. The development of occupations in different countries shows that the introduction of new models of organisation in enterprises, which is oriented towards business processes of the company, goes in line with a clear reversal of the horizontal division of labour and thus to a reduction of occupational profiles. In accordance with the goal of “more and better [sic!] jobs” stipulated in the Lisbon strategy (European Council, 2000) this observation suggests the introduction of comprehensive occupational core profiles [Kernberufe ], which would provide opportunities for further development, as a primary goal with regard to the establishment of a common European framework. 2.3 Domain-specific competence In the 1980s and 1990s sociological research on qualifications put an emphasis on the observation of a systematic devaluation of professional knowledge (de-professionalisation) and an accompanying enhancement of so-called interdisciplinary knowledge. From this situation emerged, among other things, the initiative to establish so-called soft skills or core-skills, an enhancement of formal education and a particular attention in research for the learning transfer between domains. In the meantime the hypothesis of the priority of formal strategies of thought in the successful application of knowledge has been refuted by expertise research. One becomes an expert by reflected practice in a specific domain, e.g. in an occupation[3]. Many of the competences acquired in one occupation cannot be transferred to another domain. In a new domain one starts therefore anew as a novice and has to develop into an expert step by step. The foundations of occupational competence are domain-specific knowledge and skills: Auch in Gesellschaften, die eine zunehmende Diskontinuita¨t von Berufslaufbahnen mit multiplen Berufslaufbahnmustern charakterisiert, sind Bildungsprozesse notwendig, die das Ko¨nnen mit dem intelligent organisierten Doma¨nenwissen verbinden [Even in societies characterised by an increasing discontinuity of occupational careers with multiple career patterns there is the necessity for educational processes that combine skills with well-organised domain-specific knowledge] (Gerstenmaier, 1999, p. 67).

Learning in work contexts structured by occupational profiles is therefore of crucial importance (Boreham et al., 2002). 2.4 Competence development: from novice to expert The domain-specific development of competences leads in different steps from the novice to the expert. In competence research there is normally a distinction between four or five levels of competence. The five-stage model of competence development introduced by Dreyfus has acquired a certain reputation in expertise research (Figure 1). Domains can most easily be conceived of as occupations. In this respect it is of no importance whether the occupation in question is an academic profession or a non-academic occupation. A nurse might just as well reach the level of an expert according to this novice-expert paradigm as a medical doctor. Both represent domains which are relatively independent from each other and which differ remarkably on the level of expertise: the medical doctor is by no means the better nurse. A hierarchical

VET in Europe

225

Figure 1. Five steps from the novice to the expert

structuring of different levels of qualification cannot be justified by reference to expertise research. The criteria proposed by Esser and others for the description of complex situations of agency (complexity, intransparency, dynamics) is appropriate for the characterisation of the development from the novice to the expert – and thus for expertise- and domain-specific qualification research – as well as for the foundation of vocational training curricula that are built after the novice and expert model (Esser et al., 2005, p. 3). One can become an expert in any occupation, provided that the working conditions allow for the development of expertise. Expertise and competence research therefore recommend the design of occupational curricula based on the model of novices and experts. The theoretical frameworks of “situated learning”, “cognitive apprenticeship” and “community of practice” summarise findings from the fields of developmental and learning theory which suggest that vocational education and training should be organised in the tradition of apprenticeship and master training instead of an academic concept with a sequence of elementary and specialised education[4]. 2.5 Domain-specific employability and occupational competence The primary feature of vocational education and training is the goal of achieving domain-specific employability (Berufsfa¨higkeit) in the occupation one was trained for. This distinguishes vocational training in a fundamental way from any kind of school-based and academic education. Vocational education and domain-specific employability therefore by necessity include reflected work experience and thus learning in the work process. On all levels of qualified work this is either explicitly and formally regulated or at least a common informal practice. At the level of skilled workers and employees the acquisition of employability, the integration into the relevant community of practice and the accompanying development of occupational

JEIT 32,2/3

226

competence is linked to a dual organisation of vocational education which is based on reflected work experience. In a modern comprehensive occupation the acquisition of occupational competence takes between three and four years. To be sure, the development of occupational competence on the basis of work experience is a process extending beyond this period, which above all ensures that the attained level of qualification can be maintained. If the phases of school-based and practical or work-based learning are arranged in a sequential order, the training period usually is extended. The same is true for university studies. These are, by definition, not on par with vocational education and training. An academic degree does not lead to domain-specific employability. It is only after a period of practical training following graduation, e.g. in the shape of a two-year preparatory service (Referendariat) or some years of professional experience, that graduates attain domain-specific employability. Traineeship programmes for university graduates in bigger enterprises are another example. Conclusion. The criterion of domain-specific employability offers the opportunity to develop a qualifications framework and to relate the different levels of vocational qualifications to each other. Without this criterion competences acquired in dual courses of vocational education and training cannot be compared with competences that emerge from school-based vocational education or university studies. The concept of Berufsfa¨higkeit corresponds to the findings on professional competence of expertise and qualification research. According to these occupational skills is the result of a process of competence development, which in turn requires domain-specific, reflected work experience (Scho¨n, 1983; Ro¨ben, 2004; Fischer and Rauner, 2002; Chi et al., 1988; Gruber, 1999)[5]. The structure of qualification levels as it is being suggested by labour market research can now be formulated more precisely. According to the concept described above, a highly qualified person is somebody whose university degree is followed by an approximately two-year period of practical training or work experience in the respective domain. The British tradition of the Chartered Engineer or the second Staatsexamen (upon completion of a preparatory service after university studies) in Germany is examples that put this insight into practice. Moreover, from the perspective of expertise and qualification research it appears reasonable to divide the qualifications at the intermediate level into two, namely the levels of skilled workers and operative professionals. The differences between the qualification levels do not result from the degree of expertise, but from the range and depth of the professional knowledge and skills characteristic for a particular domain or occupation. This is what the extent of qualifications is based on, and this extent manifests above all in the amount of time spent on the training. 3. A framework for qualifications 3.1 Description Occupational competence is defined as the ability to perform, within a specific (occupational) domain, job tasks that are considered typical or characteristic for the respective occupation. In each occupational domain there is the possibility of becoming an expert. From the point-of-view of examinations and assessment procedures this provision is an advantage in that all across Europe occupational competences could be

assessed according to the criterion of domain-specific employability (Berufsfa¨higkeit). Assessment methods can be based on two general rules: (1) Evaluation of the competences which are indispensable or mandatory for the exercise of a particular occupation. This criterion is of crucial importance for professional tasks and occupations where security-related, health-related and environmental competences are parts of the occupational profile. In case that a trainee is not in possession of the competences defined as necessary, the respective qualification level has not been achieved. (2) Evaluation of the competence level that has to be attained for a specific (occupational) domain. Considering the novice-expert concept it would be sensible to assess whether besides the acquisition of mandatory competences at least the fourth competence level has been attained (Figure 1). The qualifications framework draws a distinction between three levels of qualifications (Figure 2). Level 1: Skilled workers (180 credit points (CP) with a range of 150 – 210 CP). The following qualifications are located on this level: . Dual vocational training of 2,5 to 4 years. . Skilled workers who have, following a programme of school-based vocational education of two years, completed a programme of practical training of another two years or acquired comparable work experience. . Similar programmes of vocational education and training that integrate or link practical and theoretical education. In this case practical training must include learning in real work processes. Level 2: Operative professionals (300 CP). The following qualifications are located on this level: . Technicians and Fachwirte who attend a two-year programme at a Fachschule after having finished initial vocational training and having gained at least one or two years of work experience. . Technicians and Fachwirte who attend a two-year dual study programme at a Fachschule subsequent to their initial vocational education; Master craftsmen (industry and craft trades). . Graduates with a Bachelor degree who have added an appropriate two-year programme of vocational training to their studies or are in possession of reasonable work experience. The level of operative professionals includes skilled workers and qualified employees whose levels of qualification are comparable, but who remarkably differ from each other in respect of their competence profiles and educational careers. The competence of a master craftsman, for instance, is based on prior dual vocational training followed by domain-specific work experience and a supplementary programme of theoretical education which aims at extending the ability to take over entrepreneurial responsibilities. In the case of the education of technicians, on the other hand, the emphasis is put rather on deepening the theoretical foundations of process-related knowledge. Finally, the contents of undergraduate programmes normally focus on

VET in Europe

227

JEIT 32,2/3

228

Figure 2. Three-level European qualifications framework

theoretical education with a scientific background, which means that the Bachelor degree itself does not yet constitute a level 2 qualification profile. Upon graduation, participants of Bachelor programmes achieve the qualification to continue their studies within an appropriate Master’s programme. The equivalence of qualifications on the second level does not mean that the diplomas and job titles in question are interchangeable. The passing of a master craftsman’s or technician’s examination does not entail the assignment of a Bachelor degree. Conversely, graduates with a Bachelor degree do not have the right to assume the title of a master craftsman. Level 3: Strategic professionals (420 CP). The following qualifications are located on level 3: (1) Graduates with a Master’s degree who have completed a two-year programme of practical vocational training or acquired appropriate work experience. (2) Graduates with a Master’s degree who qualify for academic positions by obtaining a doctorate. (3) Operative professionals who qualify for management positions by means of a programme of continuing vocational education and training of 120 CP. Typical examples would be the planender Baumeister in Austria or the German Kapita¨nspatent fu¨r große Fahrten: . Competences acquired in the general educational system are not taken into consideration within the present framework. School certificates in general education are a prerequisite for the development of occupational competences in the domains of work[6]. . A level of competence is achieved when domain-specific employability can be proved. School-based and academic programmes of (vocational) education lead to domain-specific employability only after an additional period of practical vocational training lasting two years on average. . Unskilled and semi-skilled workers are not being included in the present framework since their training is beyond formally regulated vocational education and training and beyond the certification of acquired competences. . The different qualification steps are weighted according to the European Credit Transfer System, which is proven in the academic sector and which allows for the appropriate consideration and weighting of different forms of learning. . The weighting of different kinds of education takes place in accordance with the experiences from the academic sector. In general phases of practical training are given the same weight as phases of theoretical instruction or studies. . To the extent that work experience is a prerequisite for the attainment of domain-specific employability only half of the respective time is taken into consideration in the calculation of credit points. Thus, a two-year preparatory service (Referendariat) is equal to 120 credit points, whereas two years of work experience without formal regulations are worth only 60 credit points.

VET in Europe

229

JEIT 32,2/3

.

.

230 .

Positions above the three levels of the present framework are characterised by the fulfilment of functions with: higher responsibility; higher risk; and higher added value. This goes along with competences that emerge from the professional career, ambition and motivation of the individual and cannot be covered by formal vocational and academic education. Accordingly they are not represented in the present framework. Domain-specific work experience cannot be replaced with theoretical studies or school-based learning. Competences acquired at the level of skilled work can be taken into account for the qualification of operative or strategic professionals only to a limited extent. The recognition of qualifications therefore takes place with reference to the context of the respective (occupational) domains.

4. The ECVET concept and the recognition of qualifications 4.1 The recognition of qualifications and the transition between qualification levels The qualification process for the first level should be organised in such a way as to ensure that a subject-specific or general qualification for university studies ( fachgebundene or allgemeine Hochschulreife) can be attained. This extended vocational qualification would give access to academic education as well as to continuing vocational education leading to a qualification as technician, master craftsman or Fachwirt. As these vocational qualifications presuppose an initial vocational education, which thus becomes an integral part of the CVET system, two-thirds of the credit points gathered in the initial training are taken into account in the subsequent further education. It is assumed that approximately two thirds of the competences acquired on the first qualification level contribute to the competence development on the second level. In the context of the Bologna process not only the structures of study programmes are reorganised by the universities, but also the requirements and opportunities for admission change. Internal instruments of the universities such as special tests of language or mathematical skills are becoming more and more important. It is necessary to anticipate this development in order to strengthen the lateral permeability of educational systems. Skilled workers are given the opportunity to participate in advisory and admission procedures for places in undergraduate programmes. The responsibility for organisational details would then be with the universities or, respectively, their administrations. The access of technicians, master craftsmen and Fachwirten (qualification level 2) to university studies concerns the admission to an appropriate Master’s programme. Operative professionals have to be admitted to appropriate Master’s programmes. In the case of graduates with a Bachelor’s degree this applies already immediately after completion of their undergraduate studies. On the third qualification level a distinction is drawn between four kinds of professional qualification subsequent to the Master’s degree: (1) the doctorate for academic positions; (2) the preparatory service (Referendariat) for functions which require a second Staatsexamen;

(3) practical work experience as a prerequisite for the attainment of domain-specific employability (Berufsfa¨higkeit); and (4) Alternatively this level of qualification can be achieved by means of continuing vocational education and training. 4.2 Modular structure and ECVET The organisation of educational processes in VET is oriented at occupational curricula whose contents and objectives refer to characteristic work tasks and situations from the respective occupational domain. These correspond to the Berufsbildpositionen (components of the occupational profiles) specified in the training regulations and occupational profiles or, respectively, to learning objectives and fields of action. Accordingly every modern occupation can be described by reference to 15 to 20 professional tasks. Traditional curricular and curricular frameworks are replaced with a description of modules, which defines the occupational competences to be transferred by the module in question (outcome). Moreover, the description includes the definition of learning methods, the collaboration between the learning sites, and the criteria for assessment, i.e. the evaluation of the competences to be transferred. The instrument of module description allows for a far better co-ordination between the learning sites within the system of dual vocational education and training, including the assessment. The module description for a vocational training programme also provides an instrument to describe the contents of the relationship between the different levels of competence development much more clearly than before. The description of modules is combined with a system of credit points. Here, we concentrate on non-academic vocational training exclusively since the universities, following an agreement reached within the Conference of Education Ministers in Germany, have already implemented these structures or are involved in the process of doing so. Core and additional modules. A distinction is being drawn between core modules and additional modules. The core modules describe the core curriculum for a programme of vocational education and training or continuing vocational education and training. The additional modules are assigned to the elective and compulsory elective parts of the curriculum. They serve the purpose of localising vocational education (e.g. company-specific implementation). “Open training regulations” require an implementation process that takes the educational potentials of the enterprises into account. It must be decided on a case-by-case basis which additional modules are defined as elective or compulsory elective subjects. Modules. Modules normally have an extent of six to a maximum of twelve credit points. They are linked to each other via the occupational profiles and may temporally overlap in practice when they simultaneously become the subject of vocational training. Modules are assigned to the characteristic work tasks in a given occupation (units, learning fields, and components of the occupational profile). As stated above, educational programmes with duration of three years can be described by approximately 15 to 20 characteristic tasks. Description of a VET programme. The description of a programme of vocational education and training can follow the traditional method in the training regulations. Apart from the occupational profile (Berufsbild ) the programme description contains the job title, the module descriptions developed on the basis of the novice-expert model, the learning objectives, the assessment methods, the description of opportunities for

VET in Europe

231

JEIT 32,2/3

Module type

Workload

232 Teaching and learning methods, learning sites

Duration of modules Contents

Learning and qualification objectives

Position within the curriculum

Table I. The module description

A distinction is being drawn between core and additional modules Additional modules are differentiated into elective subjects and compulsory elective subjects Courses and teaching are measured in credit points as well as in teaching hours. In addition, work-based learning, preparation and review as well as the preparation for examinations are measured in credit points. The amounts of time for practical and theoretical education are given equal weight Here a distinction is drawn between the usual training and learning methods in vocational education and training. A particular emphasis is laid on learning in the context of work processes (orders, projects etc.). In the case of dual vocational training the co-operation between the learning sites has to be described The workload for one module should not exceed two semesters, supposing that parallel work on some modules is also possible Here, the educational or learning contents of the work tasks (modules) have to be outlined. It would be reasonable to conform to the following framework: subject of (skilled) work; forms, methods and organisation of work; and requirements of work. This way an adequate process-related description of educational contents can be ensured The description of educational objectives has to differentiate between: professional skills; knowledge governing agency; knowledge explaining agency; and knowledge reflecting agency. Explanation and reflection aim at understanding and evaluating professional agency It must be defined whether a module represents the situation of a beginner, an advanced learner or an expert

Requirements for the assignment of credit points

Here, information must be given upon what conditions the members of the target group can obtain the defined number of credit points. In case that practical training takes place via orders or project, this procedure simplifies considerably since the completed project also documents whether the required qualifications have been attained. In this case it would make sense to adapt the traditional learning diary (Berichtsheft) to the new learning methods. If necessary, the assessment can be supplemented by presentations and expert talks. At school the common procedures for assessing the relevant knowledge are available

Information on media, literature and training material

In particular, cases information can be given on these matters. This is especially important when security-related subjects are affected

General education modules

Usually, vocational education also has a mission that goes beyond the transfer of professional skills. It is reasonable either to include these objectives of general education explicitly or implicitly in the module descriptions or to define special modules for this purpose. The latter would be appropriate, for instance, in the case of language training

continuing vocational education or the transition into programmes of higher education and studies, the qualification level, the regular duration of the programme and the admission requirements. 4.3 The module description The module descriptions can be seen in Table I. Notes 1. Achieving the Lisbon Goal: The Contribution of VET: Final Report to the European Commission 1-11-04, p. 8. 2. The levels 1 and 2 of the QCA proposal for an eight level European Qualifications Framework do not characterise work-related qualifications. Level 3 describes tasks which are typical for semi-skilled workers. These three levels consequently do not constitute qualification levels which should be included in a European framework. 3. In expertise research this is labelled “deliberate practice”. 4. Cf. in this regard the European project “car mechatronic” (Rauner and Spo¨ttl, 2002). 5. As the criterion of “learning outcomes” does not differentiate between competences acquired in school or university settings and those that are decisive for occuopational competence or employability, it is not appropriate for the definition or foundation of qualification levels. 6. The authors thank Georg Hanf for his useful comments and remarks.

References Boreham, N., Samurc¸ay, R. and Fischer, M. (2002), Work Process Knowledge, Routledge Research Studies in Human Resource Development, London. Chi, M.T.H., Glaser, R. and Farr, M. (Eds.) (1988), The Nature of Expertise, Hillsdale, Erlbaum, NY. ¨ berlegungen fu¨r die Konstruktion eines Esser, H., Kloas, P.-W., Brunner, S. and Witt, D. (2005), U integrierten NQF-ECVET-Modells, ZDH, Berlin. Europa¨ischer Rat (2000), Schlussfolgerungen des Vorsitzes, Europa¨ischer Rat, Lissabon. Fischer, M. and Rauner, F. (Eds.) (2002), Lernfeld: Arbeitsprozess – Ein Studienbuch zur Kompetenzentwicklung von Fachkra¨ften in gewerblich-technischen Aufgabenbereichen, Nomos, Baden-Baden. Hanf, G. and Greinert, W. (Eds.) (2004), Towards a History of Vocational Education and Training in Europe in a Comparative Perspective, Vol. 1, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. Gerstenmaier, J. (1999), “Denken beno¨tigt Wissen – Die Bedeutung des bereichsspezifischen Wissens fu¨r Wissenserwerb und Leistung”, GdWZ, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 65-7. Gruber, H. (1999), Erfahrung als Grundlage kompetenten Handelns, Verlag Hans Huber, Bern. Rauner, F. and Spo¨ttl, G. (2002), Der Kfz-Mechatroniker – Vom Neuling zum Experten.“ Berufsbildung, Arbeit und Innovation, Vol. 12, Bertelsmann Verlag, Bielefeld. ¨ Roben, P. (2004), “Kompetenzentwicklung durch Arbeitsprozesswissen”, in Jenewein, K. (Ed.), Kompetenzentwicklung in Arbeitsprozessen, Nomos, Baden-Baden. Scho¨n, D.A. (1983), The Reflective Pracitioner – How Professionals Think in Action, Basic Books, New York, NY.

VET in Europe

233

JEIT 32,2/3

234

Further reading Benner, P. (1997), Stufen zur Pflegekompetenz – From Novice to Expert, 2nd ed., Hans Huber Verlag, Bern. Dreyfus, H.L. and Dreyfus, S.E. (1986), Mind Over Machine: The Power of Human Intuition and Expertise in the Era of the Computer, Blackwell, Oxford. Rauner, F. (2002), “Berufliche Kompetenzentwicklung – vom Novizen zum Experten”, in Dehnbostel, P. (Ed.), Vernetzte Kompetenzentwicklung. Alternative Positionen zur Weiterbildung, edition sigma, Berlin, pp. 111-32. Corresponding author Felix Rauner can be contacted at: felix.rauner@uni_bremen.de

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints