Does it help if the same definitions of indicators are used throughout the system?

How should performance be reported?

- How important is it for different parts of the VET system to use the same definition of data?

- How can training providers use data to support self-evaluation and quality improvement?

- How do you ensure that only valid, reliable and accurate data is collected?

- How do you minimise the data collection burden on training providers and employers?

Estonia has a set of mandatory indicators which are monitored at the provider and system level. Providers are able to design and use other indicators to support the mandatory data systems.

In the Netherlands training providers are primarily responsible for quality assurance and the inspectors use the same data sets and indicators to comment on the overall performance of the system. The inspection system uses this data to assess the risk of poor performance which forms the basis for inspection.

In Finland the learners’ performance in the ‘skills demonstrations’ provides a proxy indicator of the quality of the whole system. Learners, training providers and the national planners all use the same data sources which forms part of Finland’s performance based financing system. The results of these assessments are published on the Finnish National Board of Education‘s website in order for VET providers to use the information as a benchmark of their own performance.

Germany’s Federal Ministry publishes an annual report on supply and demand of VET in order to support planning of training provision.

The more the training providers, inspectors, evaluators, and national planners use the same definitions of indicators* the greater is the level of transparency and accountability.

Making VET data collection, collation and analysis a predictable event helps to regularise the use of information. This is particularly the case when everyone uses the same measures of success.

Publishing information on performance aids transparency and provides incentives for improvement.

As it is important to be clear why data is collected, each Member State is identifying the more relevant EQAVET indicators. To reduce burdens it is important to decide how data will be used before it is collected.

The indicators set out in the European Quality Assurance Reference Framework for VET have been supplemented by Member States when they have identified that additional data is needed.

* For more information on indicators, please click here

© European Quality Assurance in Vocational Education and Training

This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This Website reflects only the views of EQAVET and the Commission cannot be help responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein

Designed and developed by Arekibo