Indicative Descriptors (Implementation)

The indicative descriptors can help Member States to review their quality assurance system and gauge how much progress has been made. The following analysis presents two contrasting statements for each descriptor. You are invited to consider which of these statements best describes your own system. The indicative descriptors cover all four stages of the quality cycle.

Implementation plans are established in cooperation with social partners, VET providers and other relevant stakeholders at the different levels

Would you describe your system as one where:

  1. all stakeholders, including representatives of partner organisations are involved in planning for implementation
  2. a relatively small group of individuals or organisations decide how to implement quality assurance

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
- Czech Republic - a final examination
- Estonia - school councils
- Germany - chambers of commerce
- Hungary - using pilot projects
- Italy - the national reference point
- Luxembourg - developing the VET curriculum
- Luxembourg - setting up a stakeholder committee
- Norway - involvement of social partners at a regional level
- Norway - involvement of social partners at a national level

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

Implementation plans include consideration of the resources required, the capacity of the users and the tools and guidelines needed for support

Would you describe your system as one where:

  1. due consideration has been given to resource allocation
  2. it is unclear what resources are required to ensure quality assurance systems are in place

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 - support to training providers
- Austria - working within a national framework
- Cyprus - on-line accreditation
- Estonia - licensing training providers
- Finland - funding links to quality
- Germany - supporting employability
- Hungary - using pilot projects
- Hungary - accreditation of providers and programmes
- The Netherlands - linking funding to performance

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

Guidelines and standards have been devised for implementation at different levels

Would you describe your system as one where:

  1. guidance on quality assurance is clear and readily available
  2. there is uncertainty about what constitutes an effective quality assurance system

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 clear roles and responsibilities
- Austria - building a culture of quality
- Austria - working within a national framework
- Czech Republic - a final examination
- Finland - designing qualifications
- Spain - supporting the autonomous regions

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

Implementation plans include specific support towards the training of teachers and trainers

Would you describe your system as one where:

  1. there are clear and measurable expectations of what is required from teachers and trainers
  2. teachers and trainers are unclear about what support is available to improve their practice

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 - staff development
- Austria - support to training providers
- Austria - working within a national framework
- Cyprus - on-line accreditation
- Germany - increasing the number of teachers and trainers in further training

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

VET providers’ responsibilities in the implementation process are explicitly described and made transparent

Would you describe your system as one where:

  1. training providers are clear about their role in implementing quality assurance systems
  2. training providers are unsighted about what is expected from them in relation to quality assurance

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 clear roles and responsibilities
- Austria - working within a national framework
- Estonia - choosing a quality assurance system
- Estonia - self evaluation
- Germany - chambers of commerce
- Hungary - legislation to support quality assurance and self assessment
- Romania - networks for training providers
- Romania - internal and external self evaluation
- Romania - publishing a quality assurance manual
- Slovenia - self evaluation systems
- The Netherlands - monitoring student satisfaction
- 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) 

A national and/or regional quality assurance framework has been devised and includes guidelines and quality standards at VET-provider level to promote continuous improvement and self-regulation

Would you describe your system as one where:

  1. training providers are clear about what is expected from them and they know where to get guidance on continuous improvement

     

  2. training providers are unsighted about what is expected from them in relation to quality assurance

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 clear roles and responsibilities
- Austria - support to training providers
- Austria - working within a national framework
- Estonia - choosing a quality assurance system 
- Finland - Quality Management Recommendation
- Germany - quality management in vocational schools
- Hungary - accreditation of providers and programmes
- Portugal - linking funding to accreditation 
- Romania - a two-stage accreditation process
- Slovenia - self evaluation systems 
- Spain - creating a three-tiered evaluation system
- Spain - supporting the autonomous regions
- The Netherlands - a common understanding of indicators and data
- 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)

© 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