QCM system in the PSO

1. QCM system in the PSO Good practices from the EU Countries

2. European Union – Qualitywise • 27 Member states • 27+ Different Languages • 27+ Different cultures • This leads to a variety of approaches to quality management • There is no common EU legislation on quality management • Most common approaches to Quality Management include • EFQM Excellence Model • The ISO 9000 family. • Lean

3. European Union – Public Sector • The EFQM Excellence Model open for the public sector • EFQM Excellence Awards and Prizes • is to recognize Europe’s best performing organizations, whether private, public or non-profit. • 1998 / 1999: Development of the Common Assessment Framework (CAF) • 2000: Launch of the first version of the CAF model • Developed by the public sector for the public sector • Inspired by the EFQM Excellence model • 2001: Creation of the European CAF Resource Centre at EIPA (European Institute of Public Administration, http://www.eipa.nl) • 2010: Special version: CAF and Education

4. European UnionVocational Education and Training Sector • Education and hence quality management in education is not subject to harmonisation across the EU. • The Copenhagen Process: Joint Declaration in Copenhagen, October 2002 provides a political framework for cooperation at the European level: • Promoting cooperation in quality assurance with particular focus on exchange of models and methods, as well as common criteria and principles for quality in vocational education and training • This agenda was implemented by a technical working group (TWG) in which Member States, candidate countries, EFTA-EEA countries, European social partners and the European Commission were represented. • The Result was CQAF, Common Quality Assurance Framework,

5. CQAF (Common Quality Assurance Framework) • CQAF Comprises • a model to simplify planning, implementation, evaluation and review of systems at appropriate levels in Member States; • a methodology for assessing and reviewing systems: with emphasis on self-assessment, combined with external evaluation; • a monitoring system: to be identified as appropriate at national or regional levels, and possibly combined with voluntary peer review at European level; • a measurement tool: a set of reference indicators aimed at helping Member States to monitor and evaluate their own systems at national or regional levels. For each of these elements core quality criteria have been identified. …. the core criteria are presented as possible answers to specific questions which are transversal to any VET system or provider when reviewing policies Source: Cedefop panorama series: Fundamentals of a common quality assurance framework (CQAF) for VET in Europe

6. Planning

7. Implemen- tation

8. Evaluation and Assessment

9. Review

10. Methodology

11. CQAFCommon Quality Assurance Framework Source: Cedefop: Trends in VET policy in Europe 2010-12 • By 2011, 19 countries reported having devised a national quality assurance approach in line with EQAVET • (Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, France, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Finland, Sweden and the UK (England, Wales, Northern Ireland). • Ten further countries were preparing one • (Belgium (FL), Belgium (FR), Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Italy, Norway, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and the UK (Scotland)). • In Germany, Estonia and Sweden, a national quality assurance approach is included in legislation. • Most countries have quality standards for VET providers which are often part of legislation and are also used as a condition to accredit/approve and/or allocate funding. • Which types of standards this refers to is, however, not clear from the responses.

12. European UnionThe national and provider level • The Danish approach to Quality in Vocational Education and Training (Booklet available at http://pub.uvm.dk/2008/vetquality2) • Quality strategy for the VET Sector • “[…] it is not possible to say anything definitive and universal about quality in an education system. It is neither possible nor desirable to authorise one specific concept – be it in regard to methods or objectives and values. • This is a basic democratic principle, which takes into consideration the fact that it is possible to achieve the same goals by different routes and with different means and methods”

13. Quality policy measures No single, nation-wide approach to quality But common principles and measures at system level and different approaches at both system and provider level. The Danish Ministry of Education has defined nine common principles/measures concerning the policy on quality issues. The measures apply to the entire Danish education system, but are given different weight, and take different forms, within the education system. A tenth measure should also be included for the VET system: the funding of innovation and development projects.

17. Besides the model, the CQAF also comprises a set of indicators aiming at facilitating the member states to monitor and evaluate there own quality systems. • These indicators include the following three areas: • Employability • Access • Matching • The table to the right provide a qualitative description of how the Danish VET System matches these indicators

18. Executive order on quality development and assessment All VET providers must document that they have, and use, a system for quality assurance and development Planning: the providers must draw up an annual plan for evaluation. Implementation: the providers must draw up procedures for how to evaluate at specific levels, and within specific VET programmes. These procedures must specify how users/trainees/enterprises will be involved in the evaluations. Evaluation: the providers must write a report on the evaluation results within specific areas (i.e. the six indicators) and publish them on their website. Review: the providers must assess the results, and draw up a follow-up plan taking resources and time into consideration. This follow-up plan should be part of the next year’s action plan.

20. The main barrier to deploy quality assurance • Seen from the system level the major problem in a highly decentralised environment has been lack of motivation to work with quality assurance in some of the institutions • The heads of the institutions face the same problem with some internal departments and/or managers • The Danish ministry of Education have been using a number of methods to overcome these problems: • Increased competition on quality, openness and transparency leads to “user controlled inspection” • Extended demands on internal quality work of the institutions • More grants should be given according to the principle of “something for something” (“Quality for money”) • Quality policy, action plans and results etc. must be presented on the internet • If an institution fails to deliver, grants can be reduced or withdrawn. But normally “sharpened attention” for some time will solve the problem. • Once a year the instituting must present an action plan to the ministry of education, signed by the chairman of the board, thus securing that the board has quality on the agenda • These methods have proven to be effective at the national level as well as at the institutional level

21. The provider levelAARHUS TECH as an example • Methodology and tools • Annual Self evaluation in all teaching teams • Facilitated discussions on processes in and around the teaching • Based on the discussions the teams decides upon improvement measures and development of common practice. The resulting action plan is published on the internet • ‘Board meetings’ in the teaching teams • Board meetings are short meetings around a whiteboard comprising follow-up on the teams results for the previous period. Improvements plans for the upcoming period are decided upon – by the teaching team • Satisfaction surveys • Customer satisfaction surveys • Employee satisfaction surveys are also carried through, but not as part of the quality policy for the teaching departments.

22. Evidence of self evaluation and action plan for team:Hairdresser, AARHUS TECH (1) The evidences of self evaluation is available on the Internet • Improvement issues to be dealt with until next self evaluation (only samples are shown Results presentation

23. Evidence of self evaluation and action plan for team:Hairdresser, AARHUS TECH (2) Results presentation

30. Internal and external requirements for quality assurance and • -development • in education programmes and short courses QUALITY OBJECTIVESNo drop-outs% Completion ≥ National average *SatisfiedlearnersResult ≥ Satisfied • HighProfessionalismAverage grade ≥7 High Participation% Absence ≤ 5 DEVELOP AND IMPROVE QUALITY OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMES & COURSES Teaching teams and education managers collaborate on achieving our quality objectives through continuous improvement. This is inter alia done at lean board meetings and the annual self evaluation, where improvement is in the core of the discussions TEACHING FOLLOW-UP ON QUALITY – EDUCATIONS PRGRAMMES & COURSES The educational programs and courses are evaluated on a continuous basis through a variety of measurements, documentation control and internal audits. The measurements are, for example, satisfaction surveys, measurement of dropouts, absence and grades etc. The result of the teams are discussed at lean board meetings and self evaluation and are dealt with by the educational manager. The Quality System for AARHUS TECH

31. Student satisfaction survey, overall resultsincluding external benchmarking AARHUS TECH Best in region National average Best institution Results presentation

32. Student satisfaction winning team Results presentation • Based on the results of the annual student satisfaction survey a winning team is appointed and awarded. • The winning team should • achieve an outstanding result of the overall satisfaction level, i.e. an index above 70 on a 0-100 scale. • have a satisfaction level above national average for the particular programme • have a relatively high response rate • have improved in relation to the previous survey

33. Results by department for internal benchmarking Award winner 2011 (Not all departments are shown here) Results presentation

34. Priority mapinstitutional level Satisfaction level Impact of improvement Results presentation

35. Grades Results presentation The Ministry of Education’s grade database is published on the internet Institution by institution, programme by programme making external and internal benchmarking possible The access is too complicated to show in this presentation

36. Educational environment Results presentation • As part of the annual student satisfaction surveys, the educational environment is investigated. • The investigation comprises • Social environment • Physical environment • Aesthetic environment • Results prepared for internal and external benchmarkingas shownbefore

37. Study time and completion rates Completion time (months % completion Programme Results presentation The Ministry of Education’s Study time and completion rates on the internet Institution by institution, programme by programme making external and internal benchmarking possible Below is only part of the results for AARHUS TECH shown

38. Employment Rates Programme Results presentation The Ministry of Education’s Employment rates database is available on the internet Institution by institution, programme by programme making external and internal benchmarking possible Below is only part of the results for AARHUS TECH shown

39. Action Plan – Institution level • Once a year the instituting must present an action plan to the Ministry of Education, signed by the chairman of the board, thus securing that the board has quality on its agenda • The issue to act upon is decided by the Ministry of Education: Improved completion (reduced no. of drop-outs) • The 2011 action plan of AARHUS TECH comprised the following actions • Action 1: Development of student competences based on appreciative pedagogy • Action 2: Freshmen’s trip. All new students to the Basic course (appr. 800) and 51 teachers on a one day trip to enhance affiliation to the College • Action 3: Upgrading of competencies of teachers to work as business consultants having contact with (potential) “apprenticeship-companies” • Action 4: Apprenticeship dating. (potential) apprenticeship-companies meets potential apprentices

40. Satisfaction survey design Project Start Background Cycle Data Collection at Colleges Focus Groups Analysis Pilot test (Analysis) Report delivery Presentations Meetings The ESB- network Final questionnaire and model

41. Student satisfaction survey model Model design: ENNOVA http://int.ennova.com

42. Reputation/image Senior Management Immediate superior Satisfaction Loyalty Co-operation & Motivation Daily work - Wages and Conditions of employment Professional and personal development Employee satisfaction survey model Model design: ENNOVA http://int.ennova.com

43. Information, Information, Information, Information, Design of Design of prog prog . . Form Form og og Indhold Indhold Content Contents Eleven/ Eleven/ L L æ æ rlingen rlingen Student/ Student/ appr appr . . in school p p å å skolen skolen at college Virksomheds Virksomheds Enterprise - - Company Image Image Image Image Loyality Loyalitet Loyalitet Loyality Tilfredshed Tilfredshed Satisfaction Satisfaction General courses General courses Almene Almene fag fag Eleven/ Eleven/ L L æ æ rlingen rlingen Student/ Student/ appr appr . . p p å å arbejdspladsen arbejdspladsen at the enterprise in company Enterprise satisfaction survey model Model design: ENNOVA http://int.ennova.com

44. Expected connectionsbetween the results

45. Main priority map Objectives Planning and organising Image Strength Teaching Opportunities Teachers Social environment Weakness Physicalenvironment

46. The objective (planning and organising) Objectives 8. Information about rules, timelimits and changes in the education 9. Openness towards initiatives and suggestions to improvements 12. Information about cancellations and changes of the teaching Strength 11. Oportunity to receive guidence Opportunities 13. Consequence against those, who do not follow the rules of the college Weakness 10. Scheduling

47. Reports and analyses of results Benchmarking report (results from all the educational institutions participating in the survey) College report (results from all departments at a college) Department reports (results from each department)

48. Additional Cases of good practice in Europe 82 page Paper on Quality in Education and Training Federal Ministry for Education, Science and Culture, Vienna, March 2006 Co-ordinated by Peter Schlögl Authors: Walter Balfe, GerdBeidernikl, David F. J. Campbell, Lorenz Lassnigg, JörgMarkowitsch, Karin Messerer, DietmarPaier, Hans Pechar, Kurt Schmid, Kurt Sohm With support from Kim Faurschou and Guy Haug Published by the Federal Ministry for Education, Science and Culture Minoritenplatz 5, 1014 Vienna, Austria www.bmbwk.gv.at Printed in Austria ISBN 3-85224-129129-4 http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/18020/study_quality_in_education_a.pdf

49. (Self-)Evaluation, Reporting, Feedback(Additional Cases of good practice in Europe) • Quality management in the Netherlands’ higher education system: The combination of self-evaluation with external evaluation and accreditation • Top-down and bottom-up dialogue: Evaluation, reporting & decision-making in the Spanish VET system • Lessons to be learned (Excerpts) • First of all, the combination of top-down and bottom-up strategies provides the chance for a truly systemic operational mode of QA. • Second, evaluation systems of education depend crucially on a combination of self-evaluation and external evaluation strategies. Self-evaluation is essential for preparing the appropriate organisational unit for the follow-up activity of external evaluation. • Third, the juxtaposition also demonstrates the significance of methodological coordination in quality assurance

50. Structural Conditions for Change/Improvement(Additional Cases of good practice in Europe) • The German dual system – New and updated job profiles for apprenticeship training • United Kingdom – Local school improvement and external inspections as fundamentals for quality improvement • Conclusions (Excerpts) • Germany • input-oriented governance structures leads to rather detailed curricula that are forwarded to the providers • United Kingdom • output oriented governance structures • Emphasis on educational quality in schools leads to use of internal and external evaluation mechanisms