Statistics

Since 2011 the EQAVET Secretariat undertakes regular  surveys of the national approaches to the implementation of quality assurance in line with the EQAVET Recommendation.

We present an update on progress in the Member States in relation to the implementation of the Recommendation and the EQAVET-related objectives of the Bruges Communiqué and Riga Conclusions. The information gathered during the survey also enables us to identify some emerging trends and to highlight some of the challenges that remain to be addressed.

All 28-EU Countries completed the survey in 2016, which described 32 VET systems: Austria (AT), Belgium (BE fr, nl)) Bulgaria (BG), Czech Republic (CZ), Croatia (HR), Cyprus (CY), Denmark (DK), Estonia (EE), Finland (FI), France (FR), Germany (DE), Greece (EL), Hungary (HU), Ireland (IE), Italy (IT), Latvia (LT), Lithuania (LT), Luxemburg (LU), Malta (MT), Netherlands (NL), Poland (PL), Portugal (PT), Romania (RO), Slovenia (SI), Slovakia (SK), Spain (ES), Sweden (SE), United Kingdom (UK (Eng, Nir, Sct, Wls)). Also took part in the survey EFTA countries Candidates: Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein; and Turkey, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina; further information on these and countries can be found in the full report. View also the Results of EQAVET Secretariat Survey 2012 and Results EQAVET Secretariat Survey 2013 - 2014 .

You can download the full survey report - Report implementation of EQAVET - Results EQAVET Secretariat Survey 2016

PROGRESS IN CONSOLIDATING THE NATIONAL APPROACHES AT SYSTEM & PROVIDER LEVELS and NATIONAL VET POLICY

By 2016 all countries have established a comprehensive QA approach* compatible with EQAVET at system and provider levels (only BE reported not having this in place); and on average in more than 1 quarter of countries, EQAVET has served as the model for developing the QA approach


*By a ‘quality assurance approach’ we mean a strategy or plan which defines what systematic measures need to be taken to further develop quality assurance in VET. This is contained in an explicit strategic document which describes the steps necessary for the improvement of national quality assurance systems or, at a minimum, clearly states the intention to strengthen quality assurance in VET. This strategic document can cover other aspects of VET policies besides quality assurance.

QA approaches in-line with EQAVET

The EQAVET quality cycle, EQAVET Indicative Descriptors and Indicators* are evenly represented in the QA approaches, at both system and provider levels. Countries use the quality cycle and EQAVET Indicative Descriptors to a higher degree in the common approach for VET providers than at system level; this is not the case in relation to the EQAVET Indicators, which are used by 69% of countries in their QA processes, at both system and provider levels.

* For more information on the EQAVET quality cycle, Indicative Descriptors and Indicators visit the EQAVET quality cycle online tool at system level and provider level

Applying to IVET, CVET and/or associated WBL

In the majority of countries, the quality assurance (QA) approaches apply, by and large, to Initial (IVET) and Continuing VET (CVET) and associated work-based learning (WBL). However, figures for the CVET sector are lower at both system and provider levels. When responses are compared between 2013 and 2016, it is observed that the QA approaches to VET at system and provider levels are increasingly covering WBL.



In relation to the EQAVET related deliverables of the RC, which invites Member States to improve feedback systems that can increase the labour market relevance of VET, the results show that: systems are collecting information relating to the destination of VET graduates after completing their programmes, and that this information is used for monitoring the quality of VET provision. However, figures are lower in relation to the use of this information in order to modify and/or improve VET provision. This suggests that countries are collecting and evaluating data, but not always for the purpose of reviewing and improving the system/provision (i.e. the quality cycle is not fully closed).

In some cases, the results indicate that this could be related to the organisational issues in which data is not always easy to use as it is not centrally collected or validated (by one organisation only).
These results are observed in both the IVET and CVET sectors.

Registration systems & external review for VET institutions

The majority of countries have in place registration systems which apply equally to Initial VET (IVET) and Continuing VET (CVET). The majority of VET systems in IVET and more than half of VET systems in CVET which reported that they use Educational, Assessment and Occupational standards –which are the majority of countries are using an outcomes model.

Using the EQAVET quality cycle and indicative descriptors

As in previous years, results show that the approach to QA is solid and systematic (and has included the involvement of relevant stakeholders, employer, T&T, student) in the planning and implementation phases of the QA cycle; but that this is not the case for the evaluation and review phases.
These results are relevant for VET systems and providers; but also for providers the implementation phase seems to be not so well developed.
These results are observed for both the IVET and the CVET sectors; and the later shows lower figures. 

Using EQAVET indicators

In relation to the use of indicators it is shown that :
a) the ‘pure’ outcome indicators (i.e. indicator 5A, 5B, 6A and 6B); and
b) the indicators which provide qualitative data (i.e. indicators 6, 9 and 10) are less used by Member States.

Back to top