While laws and legal frameworks are crucial to establishing effective vocational education and training (VET) programmes, they’re not all-important, said the European Training Foundation’s Hugues Moussy. Equally important is “continuous contribution, sharing and cooperation among the different actors, because a system performs when all its part connect and coordinate”.
And an important ingredient in cooperation, said Siria Taurelli, coordinator of the ETF’s VET Governance and Quality Assurance project, is raising levels of transparency in communication and a common understanding of the roles of the different stakeholders.
Through an animated and data-rich online meeting, stakeholders from Albania, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Moldova, and Uzbekistan evaluated a year-long pilot process of self-assessments of VET policy, management, financing and quality assurance (QA) in their countries.
The self-assessment process used an innovative methodological tool developed by the ETF, the VET Governance Inventory 4.0 to assess institutions' readiness to achieve policy priorities in the partner countries.
Opening the meeting, Emmanuelle Roure, Policy Officer for International policy and external relations at the European Commission’s Directorate General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, said that aside from bridging the gap between labour markets and training, the Inventory was a key part of the EU’s strategy in the Balkans and Central Asia to ensure a “fair and resilient recovery” post-COVID.
Not all countries were at the same level and in some, the necessary mechanisms were not yet activated, said ETF’s José Manuel Galvin Arribas at the meeting held on 17 November 2021 and he gave a broad picture of the methodology behind Inventory 4.0, which was based on previous work in 23 countries. The Inventory is a data collection tool to regularly measure 65 process indicators capturing key governance functions, institutional arrangements and targeting seven type of key stakeholders. Galvin stressed that the indicators were not arbitrary but a flexible self-assessment tool for each country to adapt and make fit-for-purpose. “Effective public policies imply good governance. Self-assessments of governance arrangements help the reflection on better performance and quality of education and training systems” he said.
The ETF’s Margareta Nikolovska extracted findings from the five participating countries in a series of national snapshots. These illustrate that “the role of institutions and actors in providing suitable learning environments is being challenged as never before”, as countries try to develop national policies to address the complex factors shaping the demand for employability.
Albania has established an efficient and integrated planning system but there were low levels of agreement among the respondents that the national policy for VET and skills had been developed by both state and non-state sectors and that it had a multi-year perspective. A key policy pointer was the need to include governance indicators in annual institutional plans.
Jordan’s challenging circumstances notwithstanding, among encouraging developments has been the establishment of an umbrella skills agency, the Technical and Vocational Skills Development Commission (TVSDC). Nevertheless, the data analysis showed substantial disagreement that the legal framework tried to meet both public and private sector expectations. Hence, a twofold policy priority is both strengthening and communicating the TVSDC achievements.
Kazakhstan has an ambitious development strategy to become one of the world’s 30 most developed countries by 2050. Yet while almost half of the respondents agreed that the national policy for vocational training had a multi-year perspective, almost 40% believed the opposite. A key policy pointer was the need to strengthen analytical and quality development assessments to track the VET policy implementation path.
Moldova’s VET system and its governance are centralised at a national level. Respondents strongly endorsed the statement that “social dialogue plays an effective role at national and sectoral levels” for policy formulation and implementation, with almost 70% agreeing. Consequently, a policy pointer was to strengthen social dialogue by enhancing cooperation and coordination between public and private stakeholders.
Uzbekistan respondents were generally in agreement on the existence of sound monitoring, evaluation and review systems for VET policies, especially as regards the participation of the various stakeholders in these processes. Policy pointers were the need for further consultation to improve the overall architecture of the VET system, its governance and funding, and to develop the role of the private sector.
During the wide ranging discussion, several participants stressed the importance of disseminating among stakeholders the information generated by the Inventory, to enhance governance.
Silviu Gîncu, Head of the VET Department in Moldova’s Ministry of Education, Culture and Research, said the reality was that despite significant progress, capacity in Moldova was constrained and the legislative framework sometimes inadequate. However, “more important is collaboration and concrete activity” to achieve goals.
Responding to the Inventory finding that 36% of Jordanian respondents were of the view that the QA system was not sufficiently transparent and did not improve delivery, was Ayman Alwreika, Head of Quality Assurance in the country’s training and skills commission. To improve QA required the involvement of different stakeholders, said Alwreika, and this demanded the “building of bridges” between the public and private stakeholders.
ETF expert Aram Avagyan selected from the welter of data, some broad conclusions.
VET governance made good progress in the following areas:
▪In all five countries, national VET policies have been developed involving both state and non-state stakeholders. Only in Jordan are some stakeholders “slightly hesitant” about this.
▪Except for Kazakhstan, where there is hesitancy, VET policies in the other four countries have a multi-year perspective, combining long-term objectives and short-term targets.
Moderate progress:
▪Development of the legal framework with the involvement of all VET stakeholders is a common practice in Albania and Uzbekistan, but a somehow limited practice in the other countries.
Medium progress:
▪Overall, the effectiveness and transparency of cooperation and coordination between national and sub-regional public agencies is satisfactory in Uzbekistan, whereas between government and non-government organisations including social partners is satisfactory only in Albania.
▪Only in Moldova do stakeholders agree that the VET providers network is optimal and based on clear governance structures. Also, that VET support structures have the necessary expertise to provide good outcomes.
▪Only in Jordan is there a functional national VET council, the recently established TVSDC.
Low:
▪In none of the countries is there any comprehensive VET monitoring and evaluation mechanism, specifically at the policy level.
In reply to a question on centralisation of control, Avagyan said that although there is no single recipe suitable for every country, it appeared that even if levels of concentration vary, governance, not daily management, is more effective when there is a body providing policy coherence.
At an institutional level, there is a lack of involvement of social partners at a decision-taking level. In addition, the lack of national councils means that there is a lack of coordinated political advice to government.
Closing the proceedings, Siria Taurelli said there had been a refrain of the need to connect people and institutions within countries. “This should be extended to connection between countries, to raise audience and contributors to the international level … in the form of a network dedicated to governance issues.”
“We have heard today that burning issues of governance are the functioning of central bodies” she said. What was now important was how non-governmental actors could contribute to these bodies at a central or sectoral level.
For more details, have a look @ETF Governance Inventory meeting page: link
Please log in or sign up to comment.