Indicative Descriptors (Review)

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.

Procedures, mechanisms and instruments for undertaking reviews are defined at all levels

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) 

Processes are regularly reviewed and action plans for change devised. Systems are adjusted accordingly

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) 

Information on the outcomes of evaluation is made publicly available

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) 

 

© 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