Quality in validation in the Nordic countries

QUALITY IN VALIDATION IN THE NORDIC COUNTRIES Final report for “Quality in the Nordic Countries – A Mapping Project”

Anne Marie Dahler and Håkon Grunnet National Knowledge Centre for Validation of Prior Learning (Denmark) – NVR June 2012

1

Documentation project: Nordplus ID: AD-2011_1a25129

Contents 1.

“Quality in Validation in the Nordic Countries – A Mapping Project” ............................................................................................................................3 Preface.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................3

2.

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................4 Background......................................................................................................................................................................................................................5

3.

Aims and objectives ........................................................................................................................................................................................................5

4.

Project participants and work process ............................................................................................................................................................................6 Project meetings .............................................................................................................................................................................................................6 Project participants .........................................................................................................................................................................................................6 Meeting with steering committee ..................................................................................................................................................................................7 Working seminar in April, Copenhagen ..........................................................................................................................................................................8

5.

Quality. Quality in validation ...........................................................................................................................................................................................9 Development of working tool for the documentation of quality in validation...............................................................................................................9 Working tool: Documentation of quality and quality assurance in validation in the Nordic countries (’Grid’) ...........................................................10

6.

Findings .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................14 Schematic overview of country reports ............................................................................................................................................................................15 Laws and regulations.........................................................................................................................................................................................................18 Laws and regulations on validation ...............................................................................................................................................................................18 “Quality” in legislation ..................................................................................................................................................................................................19 Right of appeal ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................19 Implementation of laws and regulations on validation ................................................................................................................................................19 Political views on validation ..............................................................................................................................................................................................19 Follow-up on policies ....................................................................................................................................................................................................20

1

Structure............................................................................................................................................................................................................................20 Stakeholders ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................22 Competencies of validation professionals ........................................................................................................................................................................22 Methodologies ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................23 7.

Challenges regarding quality in validation ....................................................................................................................................................................23 Funding ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................24 Transparency and knowledge of the system ................................................................................................................................................................24 Scope .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................24 Impartiality ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................24 Stakeholders ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................25 Methodologies ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................25 Competencies of validation professionals ....................................................................................................................................................................25 Statistics, follow-up, research .......................................................................................................................................................................................26 Quality ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................26

National Knowledge Centre for Validation of Prior Learning

2

1. “Quality in Validation in the Nordic Countries – A Mapping Project” Documentation project: Nordplus ID: AD-2011_1a-25129 Preface

This is the final report for “Quality in Validation in the Nordic Countries – A Mapping Project”. The report is based on extensive documentation collected in five country reports which have been prepared by project participants from Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark.

The individual country reports are available on the NVR website at www.nvr.nu1 and on the NVL website at www.nordvux.net2. The five country reports were subject to discussion at the final working seminar held on 26 April 2012 at the Department of Education, Aarhus University in Copenhagen. Here project participants from Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark each presented their country reports. Subsequently, the 35 attendants, who nearly represented the five participating countries equally, discussed the findings and themes relating to quality in validation in the five countries.

In the following, we shall present the project itself along with themes and focal points in the work with quality in validation in the Nordic countries. The themes and focal points presented herein will form the basis for a future project that seeks to develop a model for quality in validation in the Nordic countries.

This report is therefore not a detailed comparison of the work with quality in validation carried out by the five participating countries, as national divergences in the fields of legislation, policy, practices and traditions are too big. In the report, we rather seek to highlight good examples, common “difficulties” and barriers in the work with quality in validation. Additionally, the report includes a presentation of the foundation of the project in order to explain how quality in validation can be understood.

This final report has been prepared by Anne Marie Dahler from University College Lillebaelt (DK) and Håkon Grunnet from VIA University College (DK), who are both attached to the National Knowledge Centre for Validation of Prior Learning (NVR) in Denmark.

NVR, June 2012

1 2

3

See: http://www.viauc.dk/projekter/NVR/aktiviteter/Sider/Nordplusprojekt-landerapporter.aspx See: http://www.nordvux.net/object/31989/valideringkanstyrkesbetydeligt.htm

2. Introduction In March 2011, the National Knowledge Centre for Validation of Prior Learning, Nordplus sought financial support for the development of a project entitled Quality of Validation in the Nordic Countries - A Mapping Project. Contact had previously been made to relevant partners in Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland via NVR’s connections in Expertnätverk for Validering3. This expert validation network forms part of Nordiskt Nätverk för Vuxnas Lärande4; an adult learning network through which it was possible to establish contact with Nordic institutions of education, organizations and individuals who work with validation and quality assurance. Thus, from the outset, we were able to create a broad, Nordic-based project and gather adequate professional competencies and knowledge resources from different countries.

In Expertnätverk for Validering, there was already a broad consensus on the great importance of quality in the validation work carried out in the individual countries.

Quality in Validation in the Nordic Countries – A Mapping Project is linked to Recognition and Validation of Prior Learning; a priority area under the Nordplus Adult Programme focusing on the development of tools and methods to document competencies that have been acquired through informal and non-formal learning.

As regards the use of the term “validation”, rather than, for example, “recognition of prior learning” or “assessment of prior learning”, we have obviously had to make a choice. We are well aware that the Nordic countries also have different names for and approaches to the field that, in Denmark, is referred to as “recognition of prior learning”. Furthermore, there are special national traditions, laws, institutional affiliations, methods of assessment, financing procedures etc.5 However, we have decided to use the term “validation” for several reasons. Firstly, it would require extensive work to include each country’s definition of “prior learning”, and the picture would get even more complex when we add descriptions of legislation, practices, procedures and institutions in each country. It has been our intention to avoid such complexities.

Secondly, we assume that the target group for the project and its results, and thereby for this report, is aware of these divergences and immediately understands the concept of “validation” without the need for detailed descriptions and definitions.

Thirdly, in this project, we have been influenced by Canadian validation researcher, Joy Van Kleef, and her broad understanding of how quality in validation should be construed, described and handled. With her understanding of quality and conception of quality in validation, focus has been placed on quality rather than on the definition of validation, which allows us to discuss and concentrate on quality rather than on concepts of validation.

3

For an overview of Ekspertnätverk for Validering, click here: (http://www.nordvux.net/page/573/validering.htm) See www.nordvux.net 5 For a short outline, click here (Nordvux.net): http://www.nordvux.net/page/6/validering.htm 4

4

Background During the past ten to 15 years, the Nordic countries have implemented, to varying degrees, different measures and adopted laws to ensure that individual are able to have their non-formal and informal competencies assessed and recognized. The organization and implementation of validation vary considerably from one Nordic country to the next, and this also applies to the way in which each validation/assessment of prior learning is carried out.

There is, however, a common interest in assuring quality in the validation work in the Nordic countries. Quality assurance of validation is on the agenda everywhere, both at national, Nordic and EU levels, and it could be regarded as a key concept for the challenges in the work with recognizing prior learning/validation in the Nordic countries which NVL’s expert validation network presents in its memorandum, Challenges in the Work with Recognizing Prior Learning/Validation in the Nordic Countries.6 An increased focus on quality in validation, and thereby an important prerequisite for this documentation project, has been that if the idea of recognizing prior learning is to make a serious impact and enhance the opportunities for individuals, transparency and assurance of quality in the validation process must be broadly improved.

In this regard, a first step is to document how the respective countries currently work with quality assurance at the different stages of the validation process.

3. Aims and objectives The main aim of Quality in Validation in the Nordic Countries – A Mapping Project is to identify how the respective Nordic countries work with quality in validation. In this context, Nordic countries comprise; Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark.

Here we shall not further define the concept of quality applied within the framework of this project but merely refer to the presentation below. As we will discuss later on, it has been our intention to document specific validation practices as well as to what degree and in what way these practices and the underlying legislation etc lead to and reflect a focus on quality in validation: -

6

5

What kind of legislation exists?

What does the legislation say about quality?

Which regulations, directives and rules exist?

What specific approaches are taken by the educational institutions and in a series of (selected) areas where validation practices are found?

How and to what degree can quality and work with quality in validation be seen in such areas? Etc.

http://www.nordvux.net/page/1142/validering.htm

The objective of this project is that national challenges and prospective initiatives for the future can be identified. The project participants shall not be responsible for making these contributions, but the material prepared for each of the five countries (i.e. the five country reports) contains an array of information which can serve as a starting point for the decision-makers in the respective countries (education directors, policymakers etc), including politicians.

The objective of this project has been to prepare documentation and thereby contribute with an overview and knowledge not previously available.

Additionally, at a practical level, the project was to end with a joint Nordic conference where the results were discussed and prospective ideas could be presented. This conference took the form of a working seminar, which was held on 26 April 20127. A total of 35 people, almost equally divided on the five Nordic countries, attended the conference, where especially the reports presented by the five country representatives aroused the interest of the attendants.

This documentation project has resulted in ideas and provided the basis for a future development project across the Nordic countries. An application for such a project, entitled Quality Concept for Validation in the Nordic Countries – A Development Project, has now been submitted and approved by Nordplus for the period from March 2012 to the beginning of August 2012.

4. Project participants and work process Nordplus approved the application in June 2011, requiring minor budgetary adjustments. The actual work could begin in August 2011.

Project meetings The first working meeting took place from 4 to 5 September 2011 in Helsinki, where the project participants gathered to review the application, discuss aims and objectives, find a common understanding of quality in validation as well as to balance expectations and to plan the future stages of the project. Here the following people met for the first time: Project participants:  Anni Karttunen, Expert for European Educational Policy, Savo Consortium for Education, EUedu, Kuopio, Finland  Anna Kahlson, Swedish National Agency for Higher Vocational Education, Västerås, Sweden  Haukur Harðarson, VPL Specialist, Education and Training Service Centre, Reykjavik, Iceland  Margrethe S. Hernes, Senior Advisor, VOX, Oslo, Norway  Anne Marie Dahler, Associate Professor, NVR, Denmark  Håkon Grunnet, Project Manager, Consultant, NVR, Denmark 7

6

See documentation from the conference here: www.viauc.dk/projekter/NVR/aktiviteter/Sider/Nordplusprojekt-landerapporter.aspx

 

Per Andersson, Docent, PhD, Linköping University, Sweden Steering committee headed by Asta Modig, Director of Education, Skolverket, Stockholm, Sweden, as representive of Expertnätverket för Validering, NVL

As the formal project applicant, Kirsten Aagaard, Head of NVR, also attended the meeting in Helsinki. NVR is one of the knowledge centres affiliated with VIA University College (Denmark), which means that, at an organizational level, the project is embedded in VIA UC’s Department for Further Education and Competence Development (in Danish: “Højskole for videreuddannelse og kompetenceudvikling”).

Meeting with steering committee On 27 October 2011, Anne Marie Dahler and Håkon Grunnet attended a meeting in Copenhagen for Expertnätverket for Validering, NVL. At the meeting, the project was presented to the steering committee, along with work schedules and a quality concept. In addition, the participants discussed the output and outcome of the project, including the working seminar scheduled for April 2012.

The steering committee approved the aims, objectives and procedures announced. At the meeting held on 27 October 2011, it was specified that; •

the target group for the project comprises practitioners working with validation in decision-making, administrative and practical terms;

•

the output of the project consists of documentation, reports and a final conference seeking to identify fields and ideas for quality improvements;

•

–

nationally, at an organizational level;

–

“locally” in relation to specific validation practices at student guidance centres and educational institutions

As to the outcome (the longer perspective), the project should help ensure that the individual who is going through a validation process sees it as a qualified process, and that the competencies recognized in this process have the same status, compared with the education system and labour market, as the competencies acquired in the formal system. Thus, in the long run, it is the individual who should benefit from the project.

As regards the documentation of quality in validation, the importance of being able to document how quality is incorporated into the following areas was emphasized: •

7

legislation, regulations etc

•

the organization of; –

partnerships with stakeholders and practitioners concerning the validation process;

–

procedures and practices applying to the validation work;

–

requirements set for practitioners – the people who undertake the actual validation work – in terms of their formal competencies as well as their opportunities for further training and development of competencies and methodologies

Furthermore, proposals for a framework for data collection and descriptions of documentation made by the project participants were presented. The framework or “grid”, which quickly became the name applied to this tool, is inspired by, and partially based on, Joy Van Kleef’s work with quality in validation8. In addition, the project group has been inspired by the Swedish guidelines for quality in validation (‘Riktlinjer och kvalitetskriterier’) and by The European Guidelines for Validation of Non-Formal Learning. 9 See below for further information about the grid, which forms the basis for this project and the five country reports.

Working seminar in April, Copenhagen At the seminar in Copenhagen10, which also marked the provisional completion of the project, the five country reports11 were presented and discussed. These reports contain extensive documentation and represent a new and joint contribution to our knowledge of validation and quality in validation in the Nordic countries.

At the seminar, the five country representatives’ documentation of quality – or the lack of it – in the validation work met with considerable interest from the attendants. Additionally, there was strong support in favor of the continuation of the project as a development project; something which, as previously mentioned, has now (as of June 2012) been approved.

8

Read the article by Joy Van Kleef for the NVR seminar on 22 April 2012: “QUALITY IN PRIOR LEARNING ASSESSMENT AND RECOGNITION - A Background Paper” CEDEFOP publication: http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/EN/publications/5059.aspx 10 Read the article about the seminar in Copenhagen: http://www.nordvux.net/object/31989/valideringkanstyrkesbetydeligt.htm 11 Documentation from the working seminar is available on the NVR website at nvr.nu. For further details, click here 9

8

5. Quality. Quality in validation In this project, we have taken a dynamic approach to the understanding of quality in validation, which means that we have not established any target indicators of quality which must be fulfilled. As previously mentioned, a theoretical framework for the project has been Canadian researcher, Joy Van Kleef’s open definition of quality in validation: “The establishment of and adherence to policies, processes and assessment practices that maximize individuals’ opportunities to fully and accurately demonstrate relevant knowledge, skills and competencies” 12 Van Kleef points to different general mechanisms that can be applied to quality in validation. These are as follows:     

Legislation Government policies Collaborative mechanisms Institution-based mechanisms Indirect stakeholder support

In the documentation of quality in validation of prior learning, these mechanisms are in focus. This project therefore seeks to document how quality is specified in laws and regulations and how it is incorporated into the organization of partnerships concerning validation, procedures and practices, including the development of competencies and methodologies, in relation to the actual work with recognition of prior learning.

Development of working tool for the documentation of quality in validation As previously mentioned, Joy Van Kleef’s studies, European Guidelines for Validation of Non-Formal Learning, and the Swedish guidelines have served as inspiration for the project participants in their development of a working tool that could control each country’s documentation process in a clear and focused manner.

The guiding principal for this project has been to document the existence or non-existence of quality in validation within the fields identified as crucial by the project group.

The five “areas of documentation”, to which an extra one was added in the process, are as follows:

12

Van Kleef, J. (2011): Quality in Prior Learning Assessment and Recognition. In: Aagard, K. og Dahler AM: Anerkendelse af realkompetencer – en antologi. Århus: ViaSystime. See also the previously mentioned article by Joy Van Kleef.

9

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Laws, rules, regulations etc Policies Description of validation system. Organization, institutional affiliation etc Stakeholders, organizations, labour market, third sector etc Competencies of validation professionals. Potential certification, competence requirements and opportunities for competence development Methods for validation

Each of these fields, or “areas of documentation”, has subsequently been subject to examination. Our initial approach has been to establish a series of criteria for quality in validation within this particular field. We have then examined whether the criteria were fulfilled in the respective countries and finally specified where the documentation was found and described its nature and form.

We have inserted the working schedule below in the form in which it was originally developed by the project participants in the autumn of 2011.13 As regards our focus on the individual, it has been decided that this crucial focus should not be a separate area for documentation but rather a crosscutting issue, which is integrated in each of the six areas of documentation.

Working tool: Documentation of quality and quality assurance in validation in the Nordic countries (’Grid’)

Areas of documentation Criteria of quality 1. Law and regulations

There are laws supporting and regulating validation The laws are giving the individual right to be validated

The law is detailed

13

10

Indicators (checklist)

Suggested type of documentation

Are there national laws, regarding quality?

Is it explicit in the law that the individual is given the right of validation?

Are there restrictions and/or special conditions?

Are the law and regulations dealing with: - financing - appeal systems - follow-up systems - documentation/certificate - competences of validation profession-

Law texts

This schedule was originally created in English because the working language of the project is English.

References to and underpinning of relevant passages

References to and underpinning of relevant passages

The laws are implemented

2. Policies

There are policies regarding validation

The policies are followed up

3. Structure of the system

There are nationally accepted standards There are policies regarding financing The system is well known

The system is impartial

The system is transparent

11

als To which degree is the law implemented, e.g. are there structural obstructions?

Are there policies at an overall level?

Are there policies related to subsystems? (different levels and subgroups) Are there national/local statistics on validation?

Are the policies reviewed?

Are the policies revised?

Follow-ups, reports, perspective of CR’s (Country representatives) Policy documents Policy documents related to subsystems References to and examples of statistics Policy reviews Policy documents Policy documents

Is the validation system known?

- to stakeholders - to individuals - in the public Is the system impartial to stakeholders?

- Who is responsible for validation?

- How is the ‘validation organizations’ related to the educational system and the labor market?

Is the system transparent?

- Is the goal of the validation process clear?

- Is it transparent how the process of validation is?

- Is it transparent who is involved in the process?

CR’s description

Policy documents Laws CR’ s description

Policy documents Laws CR’ s description

-

The system is accessible

Put it together with: the system is well known

There is available information

The system is sustainable

Guidance is part of the system

Overviewing is part of the system

4. Stakeholders

Different stakeholders are ‘invited’ / involved

The stakeholders collaborate (education, authorities, social partners, labor market) The stakeholders has influence on

12

Are standards known and legitimate?

Is the system accessible regarding - financing - geography - for different target groups - age - ethnicity (language) - individual barriers/ bad school experience How are individuals and stakeholders informed about the validation system?

Where do you find information about the validation system?

- Is the system project-based or incorporated in xxx systems?

- Is it embedded in the qualification system?

- How is it financed?

- Cost-benefit (?)

Is guidance an integral part of the validation system?

Information material about the validation system

Descriptions of the role of and access to guidance in law texts, policy documents, institutional documents etc.

Is there a competent body overviewing validation?

Is there a quality system?

Which stakeholders are involved in discussions, development and operation of the validation system?

Policy documents Laws CR’ s description

How do stakeholders collaborate?

Are stakeholders involved in developing standards?

How are stakeholders involved in the

Description of structures supporting the collaboration of stakeholders Policy documents

law or/and policy-making

5. Competences of validation professionals

There is a standardized certification system for validation professionals The validation professionals have access to support networks The validation professionals are surveyed?

development of policies in the area of validation?

Is there a standardized certification system for validation professionals?

Is it required that validation professionals are trained or certified?

Do the professionals have access to support networks? How are support networks organized?

Are validation professionals surveyed?

How are they surveyed?

Laws CR’ s description CR’s description Description of certification system

Who are responsible for the development of relevant methodologies for validation?

Are the methods reliable and valid? (e.g. co-assessors) Are they fit for purpose?

Are they fit for the individual?

Are they fit for the field branch?

Do validation professionals apply a combination of methods in the process of validation?

CR’s description Public documents Reports

CR’s description Public documents Reports CR’s description Public documents Reports

6. Methodologies Methodologies are developed for purpose and are tested

A combination of methods are used

13

6. Findings On the basis of the schedule presented above (“the grid”), the country representatives have prepared extensive country reports, including documentation/appendices.

The following section contains a schematic overview of the country reports. For detailed information about each country’s contributions, further reference is made to the respective country reports, which can be accessed via the link below.

Afterwards, the country reports will be summarized thematically, i.e. across the fields of legislation, policies, structures, stakeholders, competencies of validation professionals and methodologies.

Finally, different quality obstructions within each area will be identified. Some (but not all) obstructions are common to more than one country. However, the objective has not been to compare national quality obstructions, as the respective frameworks and systems for assessment/VPL, including the various conceptions thereof, are too different. Instead, the objective has been to use the diversity of the systems to identify challenges, dilemmas and other conditions related to the study of quality in validation in Nordic countries.

As previously mentioned, the five country reports contain detailed descriptions of each country’s work with quality in validation.14

14

14

The country reports are available on the NVR website, see here, and on the NVL website, see here

Schematic overview of country reports

Country/ Area LEGISLATION

NORWAY

SWEDEN

FINLAND

ICELAND

DENMARK

*Opplæringslova (elementary school and post-compulsory education) *Fagskoleloven *Universitets- og høyskoleloven

*Skollagen *Förordning om yrkeshôgskolan *hôgskolefôrordningen

* Lag om yrkesinriktad Vuxenutbilding * Lag om yrkesutbilding * Föreskrift om individualisering 2006

* Adult Education Act * The Upper Secundary School * Regulation for the Adult Education Act

Quality is incorporated into the legislation in the form of detailed descriptions of procedure.

Quality procedures required by law

* Lov om ændring af forskellige love på Undervisningsministeriets område (556) * Bekendtgørelse om ændret bekendtgørelse om fælles kompetencebeskrivelser for erhvervsrettet voksen- og efteruddannelse *Bekendtgørelse af lov om erhvervsrettet GU og VVU * Bekendtgørelse om individuel kompetencevurdering i VVU og diplom i videreuddannelses systemet for voksne

Validation is a decision that can be appealed, in pursuance of Forvaltningsloven/The Public Administration Act. The law does not contain any provisions on the competence development of validation professionals.

The law is implemented, but the level of activity varies according to local authorities, counties and educational institutions.

Validation is conducted in the education system, at job centres and by industry associations.

Only validation in the education system is regulated by law.

Limited right of appeal at the level of yrkeshögskole/higher vocational education.

As to admission and award of credit at the level of university/högskole, decisions may be appealed.

The law is implemented at the level of yrkeshögskole/higher vocational education.

A committee has been appointed to prepare proposals for a quality strategy for VET programmes.

Complaints can be filed with the vice-chancellor of the school or with the examiner /examenskommissionen (testing commission).

The law is widely implemented.

Each candidate has the right to complain about his assessment, cf. the regulation above.

The law only addresses people who have not completed uppersecondary school.

The law is implemented at this level.

The law does not contain details about funding.

The law explicitly mentions appeal systems.

The regulations specify that educational institutions are obliged to assure quality.

The law is implemented, but the level of activity is low.

15

Policies

Mandat til Vox; Validation at all levels of education is specified in several national documents.

National statistics are prepared and used to follow up on legislation etc.

Structure

The Norwegian system is embedded in the education system.

The system is not sufficiently known.

Validation is conducted on the basis of curricula in the education system; education providers can act as assessors.

Career guidance exists to some degree because the right to guidance follows the right to education.

National criteria and guidelines under preparation. SUHF (voluntary association of universities and folk high schools) have prepared recommendations.

No follow-ups – must be conducted on the basis of national criteria

As regards adult education, the local authorities are responsible for validation and education. VET institutions, folk high schools and universities are responsible for validation and education.

In the labour market, the responsibility lies with the industry associations. Job centres order validation/assessors who need authority from the industry association.

Transparency needed Guidance is an integral part of the national

16

Policies directed at specific target groups.

As to VET, the most important policies are qualification standards and national guidelines.

Statistics are prepared annually but do not contain information about the extent to which the competencies of the participants have been validated.

The Finnish system is based on a tripartite principle in all respects.

Validation procedures are embedded in the qualification system.

Assessment is performed by employers, employees and teacher representatives.

The system is relatively old and well established.

The system is relatively transparent and highly accessible.

Guidance is considered an integral part of the

National policies do exist.

Annual reports from the ETSC (LLL Centre) contain statistics on validations.Policies are revised continuously.

Policies exist at a general level (Recognition of Prior Learning in the Education System).

At a lower level, policies exist in the form of handbooks published by the Ministry of Education.

More statistics in the area are needed.

Validation is embedded in the LLL Centres, which coordinate projects; the system is project-based.

Only approved centres may coordinate validation projects. The system is known by stakeholders and people who work in “certified trades�; not by the general public. Strong links to the labour market through the LLL Centres.

Validation professionals are attached to postcompulsory degree programmes.

Validation is embedded in the education system, and is not impartial.

Validation is conducted on the basis of curricula in the education system; education providers can also act as assessors.

The system is not sufficiently known.

Career guidance is specified in laws and regulations and is part of the system; problem with many players and unclear interfaces for interaction.

Validation is free for people without a professional education.

Stakeholders

Competencies of validation professionals

guidelines.

In practice, guidance ranges from integrated to non-existing

system. However, guidance is not defined by legislation, and the guidance procedures are not defined by policies.

Public authorities, employers’ and trade union organizations, student bodies and education providers. The parties are involved through broad reference groups and working committees.

National forum for validation – strategic forum with national players.

HSV, VHA, SKL, IPK, corporate Sweden, industry-specific validation network

Stakeholders are represented in utbildingskommisionerna/education commissions, which are appointed by the Ministry of Education.

Assessors are not certified, but educational advisers are experts within their academic fields.

Validation professionals are not certified.

Examensmästere/ testing experts are trained according to a programme established by the National Board of Education.

Networks exist at county level. No supervision of validation professionals

17

Certification will be a future quality parameter in the guidelines.

The testing coordinator is obliged to train assessors.

No guidance training Teachers often act as

The system is transparent.

Standards are developed and adjusted by stakeholders prior to each project.

Validation is financed by the state and/or funds, which are controlled by trade unions and businesses. Free for individuals. Guidance integrated The social partners and the Board of the Educational Fund The Ministry of Education is also an important player.

Validation professionals receive their training on a two-day course. The ETSC coordinates four annual meetings for networks of advisers who coordinate validation projects. Advisers are approved by the steering committee and receive training.

Taximeter funding

Legislation in the field of education is drafted in collaboration with different organizations and educational institutions.

No formal training of validation professionals required A diploma degree in VPL has been launched.

National networks exist in specific fields of education.

advisers.

The National Board of Education organizes courses for professionals who work with competence-based qualifications.

Methodologies

Methodological development is mostly directed at tertiary education. The development takes place both locally and nationally.

Many different methods at work.

Written documentation is prevalent.

Validators are generally responsible for methodological development; local authorities, educational institutions, industry associations.

Methods and tools are often “cost efficient” (i.e. standardized) and thereby not adjusted to the individual’s qualifications and needs.

Some use more than one assessor.

Supervision of tests/validations The methods and approaches applied to demonstrate competencies are described for each qualification.

Directions for methodologies available in each academic field

General framework Methodologies are under constant development – developed in relation to specific projects and according to the European Guidelines for Validation.

Always a minimum of two assessors involved

Developed by the educational institutions “My Competence Folder” is a common national tool, which is widely used.

It is recommended to use a variety of different methodologies.

NVR has published a basic reader in which different methodologies are described.

Laws and regulations The first of the defined quality criteria comprises laws on validation, in particular whether such laws and/or regulations set the framework for quality assurance in the validation process. This is based on the assumption that the existence of laws and regulations in a field helps indicate to what extent that specific field is taken into account at a political level.

Laws and regulations on validation All the Nordic countries have laws and regulations that specify the individual’s right to a process of VPL. This is not an independent field; laws and regulations have been incorporated into, or take the form of, amendments to existing laws in the field of education. What is common to all countries

18

is that it is not a general right for all individuals to have their prior learning experience validated. The respective countries have restrictions as to who can have their competencies validated. In Iceland, for example, the law only addresses people who have not completed upper-secondary school, and like Finland, the law is directed at VET programmes. In Denmark, the law comprises pre-master’s programmes, and the right to validation is linked to individual study programmes/fields of education; the educational institutions which are obliged to offer validation of prior learning may reject an application on the grounds that a candidate’s competencies are deemed to be beyond the scope of the programme concerned. In Norway and Sweden, provisions exist in the legislation which allow for a process of VPL at university level. In all Nordic countries, the validation process authorised by law is “married to”, i.e. linked to, the education system in the sense that validation is performed on the basis of the objectives set out in the education system. In Sweden, where validation also takes place at job centres and trading associations, it is only validation in the education system which is authorised by law.

“Quality” in legislation In Finland, quality, cf. the country report, is embedded in the legislation in the form of detailed descriptions of procedure. A working committee has been appointed to prepare proposals for a quality strategy for VET programmes in general, including validation. In Iceland and Denmark, it is explicitly required in laws and/or regulations that quality be integrated in the validation process, e.g. in the form of written quality procedures.

Right of appeal In all countries, the law explicitly states that decisions about validation can be appealed. In Sweden, however, the right of appeal is limited in relation to VET programmes, cf. the country report.

Implementation of laws and regulations on validation In Denmark and Norway, the respective laws on validation are implemented, but the level of activity in Denmark is described as “low but increasing”, while the level of activity in Norway varies according to the local authorities, counties and institutions of education. In Sweden, the law is implemented at the level of VET, and this also applies to Iceland, where the law only addresses VET programmes. It is, however, limited to the specific industries that have previously been involved in validation projects. In Finland, which has the “oldest” system and where the validation process is closely interwoven with the education system in general, the law is implemented to a relatively high degree.

Political views on validation All Nordic countries have policy documents addressing the validation process, but there are significant differences in the institutional embeddedness or those who set out the political framework in the field. It may relate, for example, to policy documents at a national level or handbooks and recommendations directed at specific target groups. In Iceland, Norway and Denmark, validation is mentioned in several national documents, for example in connection with policies on lifelong learning. In Finland, the quality standards and national guidelines are considered the most important policy documents in the field, and recommendations as well as instructions have additionally been prepared for the benefit of specific target groups. In Sweden,

19

national criteria and guidelines for validation are currently under preparation. In Denmark, instructions and recommendations exist in the form of handbooks published by the Ministry of Education.

Follow-up on policies Iceland and Norway produce statistics on validation which, among other things, are used to follow up on/revise policies in the field. In Finland, data is collected annually, but it is not specified whether competencies are acquired through validation or tests. In Sweden, there are currently no follow-ups in the field, but the idea is that follow-ups should be introduced on the basis of national criteria and guidelines. In Denmark, quantitative follow-ups in the field are based on estimates, but more specific data is needed in the field. A study based on legislative scrutiny has been conducted with a specific focus on the dissemination, quality and organization of VPL as well as on the use of VPL in connection with comprehensive programmes for adult education and continuing training, the planning of these programmes and the issuing of competence and degree certificates.

Structure The quality criteria applying to structural conditions examine the impartiality of the system and how validation is connected to the education system and the labour market. It is also examined whether the system is known, transparent, accessible, sustainable, and whether career guidance is an integral part of the system.

The Nordic validation systems have different histories and structures.

The Finnish system (which, to a wide extent, is directed at adults who have been in the labour market for a number of years, but without formal competencies) is described as being based on a tripartite principle where the educational institution is responsible for the practical aspects of the validation process, while the assessment is undertaken by the employer, employee/candidate and a teacher representative. Independent testing commissions (“Fritstående examenskommissioner”) have been appointed to issue degree and competence certificates. In the country report, the system is described as impartial; partly due to the tripartite system, and partly because the teachers who are involved in any preparatory training cannot act as assessors. The system is well known and considered an integral part of the education system. It is described as relatively transparent. The aim of validation is clear; the recognition of a full degree programme or parts of a programme. The assessment standards (qualifications) are freely accessible on the Internet, and candidates have the opportunity to assess themselves on the website, “jagkan.fi”, on the basis of 380 different qualifications/degree programmes. The system is described as being accessible to everybody, i.e. within the framework of the target group. Validation is financed through taxes, unemployment funds and projects, but no money is earmarked for this purpose. It is described as a weakness in the system that guidance is not integrated in the process, and that not all candidates are adequately informed about how validation is performed.

In Sweden, validation is conducted in various contexts, partly at job centres and trading associations, and partly in the education system. In the country report, the system is described as being fragmented. Only the part linked to the education system is comprised by laws and regulations. As to adult education, the local authorities are responsible for validation and education. As to VET and tertiary education, the educational institutions are respon20

sible for the validation process, i.e. the same practitioners who are responsible for the education, and validation is carried out on the basis of academic objectives. In that sense, validation is not impartial. Among other places, information on validation is available on the institution websites and is described as easily accessible, though often too succinct. In the national criteria and guidelines for validation, which are currently under preparation, guidance is defined as necessary support in the process. In practice, however, guidance ranges from being integrated in the process to non-existing.

The general picture provided in the country report is that the complex and fragmented nature of the system means that the level of validation activity is not as high as it could be, and that, in those circumstances, it is difficult to say anything about the sustainability of the system. There are no financial calculations that can predict anything about the sustainability of the system.

The Norwegian system is embedded in the education system, and validation is carried out on the basis of curricula in the education system. Thus, like the Swedish system, the same practitioners are responsible for both validation and education. In the country report, the system is described as impartial, but it has been pointed out that it is a challenge that education providers also act as assessors. “VPL” is described as a familiar concept, but the rights individuals have and the way in which their competencies are assessed are less known. The system is described as being known to professionals in the education industry; to a lesser degree to adult candidates at secondary-school level, and to a low degree to the public. The aim of VPL is clearly specified in laws and decisions, but the transparency of the system depends, among other factors, on whether the educational institutions have established unambiguous assessment criteria and made these accessible to potential candidates. Career guidance is integrated in the system, to some degree, because the right to guidance follows the right to education.

Like the Norwegian and parts of the Swedish systems, the Danish system is embedded in the education system, which means that the same practitioners act as both education providers and assessors. This is a challenge for the impartiality of the validation system. Validations are performed on the basis of curricula in the education system. The system is not sufficiently known, and the level of activity in the area is described as low but increasing. Guidance related to validation is specified by laws and regulations and forms an integral part of the system, but it has been pointed out to be a problem with a large number of practitioners and unclear interfaces for interaction. Validation procedures and methods as well as the preparation of quality prescriptions are the responsibility of the educational institutions that perform the validations. Validation is free of charge for individuals with no professional education. Afterwards, the system is funded via taximeter grants.

In Iceland, validation is carried out via the LLL Centres (centres for lifelong learning), which collaborate with the ETSC (Education and Training Service Centre); “owned” by the social partners and partly financed by the state. Impartiality is assured partly through the embeddedness of the system, partly through the application of a specific validation method, training of validation professionals and evaluation of the results. The system is directed at candidates who have not completed a post-compulsory programme, but who do have work experience. It is a centralized system in which procedures, methods and guidelines for quality assurance are established by the ETSC, which collaborates with the LLL Centres. The system is project-oriented in the sense that people who work in certain industries have the opportunity to receive validation through projects targeted at these particular industries. Access to validation is therefore limited, though extended every year. The transparency of the system is enhanced by centralization, the applica-

21

tion of a specific validation model, training of validation professionals, stakeholder collaboration and ownership, as well as extensive career guidance.

Validation projects are funded by the ETSC and implemented via the LLL Centres.

Stakeholders In all the Nordic countries, the social partners, educational institutions and, in some cases, public authorities, student organizations (Norway) as well as third-sector representatives are involved in the validation process, but in different ways and at different levels. In Iceland, the social partners are involved in developing the validation system via the ETSC and the LLL Centres, and steering committees with representatives from the labour market, trade unions and educational institutions are appointed. In Norway and Denmark, stakeholders are involved in the form of working teams and committees, and they are consulted in respect of the preparation of laws, regulations and policies in the field. This also applies to Sweden which has two national validation forums; Nationelt Forum för Validering, with a large number of stakeholders, and Branschnetvärk for Validering, which focuses on validation at industry level. In Finland, the participation of stakeholders is formalized in the way that the Ministry of Education and Culture appoints education commissions from different industries consisting of representatives from education management, the education system, teachers, employers and employees.

Competencies of validation professionals In Sweden, Norway and Denmark, it is not mandatory, and has not been possible, for validation professionals to obtain certification. The professionals involved in the validation process are experts in their own academic fields, and, as validation professionals, they have the opportunity to participate in courses and networks. In Norway, networks exist and courses are offered at county level. In Denmark, there are national networks attached to specific levels of education. In Denmark, the National Knowledge Centre for Validation of Prior Learning has offered courses in validation of prior learning (VPL), and a diploma degree in VPL has now been introduced. In Sweden, the competencies of validation professionals will be a quality parameter in the future criteria and guidelines that are currently under preparation.

In Finland, the so-called “examensmästere” (testing experts) receive their training in accordance with a programme established by the National Board of Education. The so-called “examensarragøren” (testing coordinator), who is responsible for the organization of validations, is obliged to train assessors. The National Board of Education organizes courses aimed at professionals who work with competence-based qualifications. Career guidance is often undertaken by teachers who are not trained in the field.

In Iceland, all validation professionals receive a two-day training course. The ETSC coordinates four meetings a year for networks of advisers who coordinate the validation projects.

22

Methodologies In Norway, methodologies for documentation and validation of prior learning are developed both nationally and locally, and there are many different methods at work. Most of these methodologies are developed for the purpose of tertiary education programmes, and written documentation is predominant. In Sweden, the responsibility for developing methodologies lies with the validation providers – i.e. educational institutions, local authorities and trading associations. In the country report, the methods and tools applied are described as being “cost efficient”, in the sense that they are widely standardized and thereby not adjusted to the individual’s qualifications and needs. Sometimes, no more than one assessor is involved in the process.

In the Finnish system, central directions given in each field of study determine which methods are to be applied. As mentioned in the country report, it is specified for each individual qualification/degree programme which competencies are to be demonstrated, including the fact that validation (“examenstillfällena”) takes place in an “authentic setting”.

In Iceland, the ETSC has set a general framework for the implementation of validation, including methodologies. The methods applied are developed on the basis of specific projects, according to The European Guidelines for Validation, and are thus under constant development. There are always at least two assessors involved in the process. In Denmark, like in Sweden, the validation providers, i.e. the educational institutions, are responsible for developing methodologies, and there are considerable variations in the stages of the process and in the methods applied. The Danish Ministry of Education has developed a web-based methodological tool for documenting prior learning, “My Competence Folder”, which is used by several educational institutions as a supplement to other methods. It is recommended to use a variety of different methods, and the National Knowledge Centre for Validation of Prior Learning (NVR) has published a basic reader in which different methodologies are described.

7. Challenges regarding quality in validation On the basis of the country reports and the discussions thereof, the most important challenges in terms of quality in validation fall within the following categories:  Funding  Transparency and knowledge of the system  Scope  Impartiality  Stakeholders  Methodologies  Competencies of validation professionals  Statistics, follow-up, research

23

Funding The funding of the systems varies and can pose several challenges to the quality of the systems. For one thing, the fact that people with formal competencies in Sweden, Norway and Denmark have to pay for the assessment themselves could create a barrier for the validation process. For another, the taximeter funding of the education system could generally mean that candidates are incited to choose education rather than validation, since the latter is more profitable for education providers. In some countries, the methods of funding are in conflict with the structure of the validation system.

Transparency and knowledge of the system What characterizes the field of validation in several Nordic countries is that validation of prior learning, first and foremost, is known to the professionals who work with validation, and that it is difficult to disseminate knowledge about the possibility of validation to potential candidates. This does not apply to Finland where the system of “fritstående examener” (independent tests) has served as a parallel system for the VET programmes since 1994.

In Iceland, where the validation system is project-based in relation to specific industries, information on the possibility of validation is focused on the industry at which the project is directed, and knowledge about validation is therefore industry-specific.

Thus, a qualitative challenge, especially in Denmark, Norway and Sweden, is that the possibility for individuals to have their competencies validated is neither known to the potential target audience nor to the public in general. It must be assumed that the legitimacy of the validation system is challenged by the lack of knowledge of what validation is.

Add to this the fact that, in systems where procedures and methodologies are the responsibility of the validation providers, there are significant variations in the organization of procedures and the methodologies applied. While the decentralized development of procedures and methodologies potentially provides for the possibility of individualization in relation to the candidate’s competencies and the competence area concerned, it could also contribute to a lack of transparency in the system, both for the individual candidates and for the stakeholders, whose understanding of and attitudes towards the functioning of the system are likely to influence its legitimacy.

Scope There are significant variations in the target groups who are offered validation in the different countries; in other words, to what degree validation or recognition of prior learning is said to be a right for the individual. The individual’s right to a process of VPL can be limited in a number of ways, partly in relation to industries, partly in relation to levels of education, and basically also by the fact that the competencies that are recognized – in the Nordic countries – are exclusively those that can be assessed from the point of view of the education system.

Impartiality In Denmark, Norway and Sweden, the education providers also act as validation providers, and they are additionally responsible for the development of procedures and methods for validation. On the one hand, the education systems could potentially be interested in keeping a perspective which favors education as the way to acquire formal competencies, i.e. an educational policy interest. On the other hand, it could potentially be in the inter-

24

est of the education systems, at least the institutions which receive taximeter grants, to use validation for the purpose of admission but not issue degree certificates – in order to increase the number of students at the respective institutions, i.e. a financial interest.

Stakeholders Even though all the Nordic countries have relevant parties involved in the development of the validation system, e.g. the social partners, the nature thereof varies. In Iceland and Finland, for example, the social partners have a high degree of ownership in the validation system, and it is worth examining what the organizational embeddedness and the way in which the stakeholders are involved in setting the framework and developing the system mean to the legitimacy thereof.

Methodologies Quality in validation is also linked to the different stages of the validation process and the methodologies applied – whether or not they are adequate for the validation of the competencies acquired by the candidate. There is a need to develop procedures and methods for validation, and this need is especially emphasized in relation to the systems where the responsibility for methodological development lies with the individual providers. In this respect, it is stated that the procedures as well as the development and application of methods vary significantly, including the use of different methods for the documentation and validation of the candidate’s competencies. In particular, there is a need to develop valid methods that can capture the width, variation and nature of the competencies acquired outside of formal education. Whether or not centralization and standardization are the solutions to this problem is open for discussion, as it has also been pointed out (in the case of Sweden) that standardized methods are not necessarily adjusted to the individual’s qualifications and needs.

Competencies of validation professionals Apart from methodological development, there is a need to qualify validation professionals. In Iceland, validation professionals receive their training through a two-day course, and in Finland, “examensmästere” (testing experts) receive their training on the basis of a programme which is established by the National Board of Education. In the other Nordic countries, formal competencies are not required for the professionals who are responsible for career guidance and validation of prior learning. The qualification of validation professionals mostly takes the form of courses, and in Denmark, Norway and Sweden, formal competencies are not required; just like teachers who work as advisers in the Finnish system are not trained in the field.

A key factor for the improvement of quality in validation in the Nordic countries is therefore 1) that validation professionals are required to possess formal skills according to their specific roles in the validation process (advisers, educational experts, assessors, administrators etc), and 2) that formal competence development of some significance is offered to the validation professionals, cf. the development of a diploma degree in Denmark. Training programmes for advisers already exist.

25

Statistics, follow-up, research In order to be able to assess quality and identify future obstructions in the validation process, several countries need to collect data of various sorts, partly to monitor the activities in the field, partly to evaluate procedures and practices in the field. In Finland, for example, statistics are prepared, but research and evaluations of the effects of validation are needed. In Denmark, there is a need for systematic registrations of validation activities, but qualitative studies and evaluations are prepared by institutions such as the National Centre of Competence Development and the National Knowledge Centre for Validation of Prior Learning. In all the Nordic countries, there is a need for studies of the impact and effects of validation, both qualitative studies of validation practices, including the impact of validation, and quantitative studies of the extent of these validation practices as well as followups and financial analyses.

Quality Quality in validation is, to varying degrees, on the agenda in all Nordic countries; among other things, through this documentation project. In Finland, it is regarded as quality assurance in itself that laws and regulations in the field are detailed and the laws implemented. However, a more open discussion about the definition of quality as well as the improvement of quality in validation is needed. In Iceland, the quality dimension is embedded in the system, in the sense that the European Guidelines for Validation of Non-Formal Learning have been the crystallization point for the development of the system. In Sweden, national criteria and guidelines are currently under preparation, also with reference to the European Guidelines for Validation.

In Denmark, knowledge about how to work with quality assurance in the VPL process is needed. Although requirements for quality in the VPL process are established at a national level, part of the quality effort of the educational institutions is to describe and document quality in the VPL process. This means that quality assurance is a decentralized task. In connection with a report based on legislative scrutiny from 2010, various initiatives have been implemented to improve quality standards. In Norway, like in Denmark, quality assurance is a decentralized task; quality work is undertaken by the different counties where networks for validation professionals are established.

26