1 / 8

AEROVET - 5th partner meeting Andreas Saniter, ITB Uni HB

AEROVET - 5th partner meeting Andreas Saniter, ITB Uni HB. Today's afternoon agenda. WP 7: Deliverables. What? Handbook How to use the material User friendly (clear, short) Statement Elements/results of the project that could/should be transferred to other sectors

shad-zamora
Download Presentation

AEROVET - 5th partner meeting Andreas Saniter, ITB Uni HB

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. AEROVET - 5th partner meetingAndreas Saniter, ITB Uni HB

  2. Today's afternoon agenda

  3. WP 7: Deliverables • What? • Handbook • How to use the material • User friendly (clear, short) Statement • Elements/results of the project that could/should be transferred to other sectors • A common statement of all partners/involved stakeholders related to the strength & weaknesses of the current elements of the ECVET-recommendations.

  4. WP 7: Handbook • Issues that should be raised • Added value (feedback, no double teaching,...) • Memorandum of Understanding • Mutual trust • Assessing method • Before mobility: Agreement on mobility units between home teacher/trainer, apprentice and host teacher/trainer • During mobility: Just using the chosen matrices • After mobility: Was it a fair assessment/judgment? Added value? Volunteer for a draft? (less than 5 pages)

  5. Reminder: WP7: Some conclusions from Marseille • The general approach of LO-learning units consisting of a coherent set of KSC seems to be compatible with all systems/the stakeholders interests • Mobility and transparency are 2 supported elements • Permeability (to HE): related to national/regional possibilities/networks, crediting not an "easy" facilitator • Assessment & credit points: bound to (different) national traditions, no interest of any changes due to ECVET • Recognition: As learning units (not to be learnt again) yes, "official" recognition only in the UK possible, but then related to detailed assessment requirements

  6. WP 7: Statement (Proposal) • We are interested to write it (content and structure) as close as possible to the frame-agreement of the German social partners, then it is easier to get their support – minority votes are possible but not gladly seen. • Qualification of the workforce as a central location factor (Political statement on the importance of VET) • Occupational concept (Berufskonzept) Importance of holistic skilled workers for themselves & industry • Aims (modernisation, integration of EASA CAT A) • Structure (partly common content for electricians & mechanics)

  7. WP 7: Statement (Proposal) • Competence fields (the AEROVET-units; coherent set of KSC, outcome-oriented, transparency) • Inherent structure (not applicable here) • Inherent flexibility instead of modularisation (!) • Structure of Assessment: Holistic, consisting of 2 parts, no assessment of single units (maybe UK min. vote) • Durance of VET (42 month) comment: minority vote needed • Europe-competence: Mobilities recommended but not mandatory

  8. WP 7: Statement (Proposal) • Curricula for schools and plants: Common (very German issue, but: Acceptance of different learning places) • Preconditions for starting an apprenticeship in the sector (lowest school-leaving certificate is sufficient) • Support: By us! • Implementation (social partners looking for additional support by other unions & companies) ∑: Beside Credit points all main issues of the ECVET-recommendation are met. Proposal for this issue: 15. Partners see no convincing added value in a general implementation of credit points; risk of loosing inherent flexibility (different impact on different units due to work share).

More Related