EU Quality Assurance in Vocational Education & Training

Would you describe your system as one where:

1. all stakeholders are clear, and agree on how reviews will be undertaken
2. there is a lack of clarity about how reviews will be undertaken

If you would like to see how other Member States have addressed this issue, you can review the case studies or review how the following building blocks have been used to support progress against this indicative descriptor.

- Austria - setting roles and responsibilities
- Austria - working within a national framework 
- Estonia - school councils
- Estonia - choosing a quality assurance system 
- Estonia - the use of indicators
- Finland - funding links to quality
- Finland - quality awards for VET
- Finland - student feedback
- Germany - chambers of commerce
- Germany - developing an annual plan
- Luxembourg - setting up a stakeholder committee
- Romania - networks for training providers
- Romania - internal and external self evaluation
- Romania - publishing a quality assurance manual
- The Netherlands - public accountability of training providers
- UK - legislation to support quality assurance
- UK - training providers’ responsibility for quality assurance
- UK - developing an “end to end” process for quality assurance

Member States who focus on this indicative descriptor are more likely to make progress on the following indicator(s) 

•  All Indicators

Or review how the following building blocks have been used to support progress against this indicative descriptor.

Would you describe your system as one where:

1. changes arise as a result of systematic and regular reviews
2. change is slow and appears to be unrelated to any review of performance

If you would like to see how other Member States have addressed this issue, you can review the case studies or review how the following building blocks have been used to support progress against this indicative descriptor.

- Austria - builing a culture of quality
- Austria - working within a national framework
- Finland - Quality Management Recommendation
- Finland - student feedback
- Germany - the chambers of commerce
- Germany - developing an annual plan
- Germany - analysing the impact of quality assurance
- Romania - a two-stage accreditation process
- The Netherlands - the public accountability of training providers

Member States who focus on this indicative descriptor are more likely to make progress on the following indicator(s) 

•  Indicator 3. Participation rate in VET programmes
•  Indicator 7. Unemployment rate
•  Indicator 10. Schemes used to promote better access to VET

Or review how the following building blocks have been used to support progress against this indicative descriptor.

Would you describe your system as one where:

1. all stakeholders, including employers and students, have easy access to information arising from evaluation
2. outcomes of evaluations are not publicly available

If you would like to see how other Member States have addressed this issue, you can review the case studies or review how the following building blocks have been used to support progress against this indicative descriptor.

- Austria - working within a national framework
- Finland - funding links to quality
- Germany - developing an annual plan
- Slovenia - self evaluation systems
- The Netherlands - monitoring student satisfaction
- The Netherlands - risk based inspection
- The Netherlands - publishing inspection outcomes on the internet
- The Netherlands - a common understanding of indicators and data
- The Netherlands - public accountability of training providers
- The Netherlands - linking funding to performance

Member States who focus on this indicative descriptor are more likely to make progress on the following indicator(s) 

•  Indicator 10. Schemes used to promote better access to VET

Or review how the following building blocks have been used to support progress against this indicative descriptor.