ETF VET PROVISION STRATEGIC PROJECT

QUALITY ASSURANCE JANUARY 2017

EVENT REPORT NOVEMBER 2016

INTRODUCTION Vocational education and training (VET) specialists from South Eastern European countries and Turkey (SEET) convened in Vienna from the 14th to the 17th of November 2016 at the ETF VET Quality Assurance event organised in co-operation with ARQA-VET - Österreichische Referenzstelle für Qualität in der Berufsbildung.

During the three-day event the quality assurance specialists focussed on the Riga1 mid-term deliverable aimed at aligning VET national quality assurance approaches with the EU Quality Assurance Reference Framework2 for VET and improving quality assurance mechanisms that ensure information feedback for the improvement of VET. The event also comprised a Focus Group session related to the Forum for VET Quality Assurance that ETF intends to launch in 2017.

The Austrian systemic and systematic approach to VET quality assurance, set the scene for peer learning. Austrian VET specialists representing, inter alia: the government and state sponsored bodies, the EQAVET National Reference Point and VET provider institutions, public and private, explained the multi-actor and multi-level approach to VET quality assurance in Austria, including the processes and procedures for information feedback for VET improvement. Visits to VET colleges in Vienna made visible the impact of effective quality management.

The importance to Austria of contributing to and learning from EU policy developments, engaging

in multi-national co-operation to support national endeavours to improve VET quality assurance and aligning national approaches with the EQAVET Reference Framework was explained. The Focus Group session reflected on the Austria experience in relation to the goals of the ETF Forum.

Event participants from the SEET region represented Albania, Kosovo3, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey. SEE T participants appreciated the opportunity for intra-region knowledge and know-how exchange. VET specialists from Austria, Croatia, Slovenia and ERISEE and ETF enriched the contents and discussions.

FOCUS ON VET QUALITY ASSURANCE

1 Riga Conclusions: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/repository/education/policy/vocational-policy/doc/2015-riga-conclusions_en.pdf.2 Council Recommendation EU Quality Assurance Reference Framework for VET3 This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence.

EVENT REPORT JANUARY 2017

‘Un-packaging’ the Riga VET quality assurance policy objective

This ETF Event in Austria aimed to ‘un-package’ the Riga VET quality assurance policy objective for the period 2015 – 2020. Within the context of further developing quality assurance mechanisms in VET in line with the EQAVET Recommendation, the event in Austria looked at quality assurance mechanisms which help to ensure that information collected on VET is reliable and fit for purpose. It considered how to quality assure the processes and procedures associated with using information at the system level, and how to guarantee that this information is accurate, valid and useable. In particular, it considered those practices which are connected to the following three EQAVET indicators:

� the placement rate in VET programmes (indicator 5);

� the utilisation of acquired skills at the workplace (indicator 6); and

� mechanisms to identify training needs in the labour market (indicator 9).

With emphasis on these indicators, in the context of an overarching quality assurance system, the event focussed on how to establish information and feedback loops in VET systems. The Austrian case study provided the context for discussion and exchange of experience.

SEE T participants reviewed a first version of a new ETF online instrument for mapping EQAVET indicators. They engaged in a practical exercise that aimed to gauge the coverage and usage of one of the three afore-mentioned EQAVET indicators in each national context. A useful outcome of this exercise was the acknowledgement that support was needed to understand the indicators and their potential and it was agreed that this could be a useful activity for the ETF Forum.

Data collection and usage as part of a comprehensive approach to VET quality assurance

A holistic quality assurance system addresses five key areas and their interconnectedness4. Quality assurance measures are needed to verify that indicators for demand/supply data collection are relevant, robust and reliable and have been constructed to monitor the objectives set for quality VET. Measures are also needed to verify that the procedures for data collection are systematic, reliable and occur with optimum frequency and that data are analysed reliably and analyses results are published and/or ‘fed-back’ into the VET system for improvement purposes. Quality assurance measures related to information systems tend to be under State responsibility.

Indicators are used to measure the quality of VET. VET indicators not only need to be ‘good’ indicators, defined with a specific use in mind, they must also be understood, in relation to data collection and analysis. VET indicators are meant to facilitate the measurement of performance against a standard; they are a tool for the comparison of performance, as regards different pathways and providers, and the follow up of changes in indicator values over time.

Indicators can be classified according to the ‘message’ they convey and the purposes they serve. Indicators that are a sub-set of statistics are numerical and quantifiable, however, there are difficulties in identifying ‘good’ quantitative indicators related to VET quality assurance and qualitative information may have to serve as an indicator even though qualitative indicators include an element of judgement and are consequently subjective.

A quality indicator can be thought of as a quantitative ‘representation’ that helps to assess a quality characteristic, such as VET outputs (e.g. qualifications), or the achievement of a quality objective. A quality

POLICY & GOVERNANCE

QUALIFICATIONS STANDARDS

PROVISIONASSESSMENT VALIDATION

CERTIFICATION

DATA &KNOWLEDGE

CREATION

QUALITY ASSURANCE IN

VET

4 ETF 2015: The ETF approach to promoting quality assurance in VET, Working Paper. Elizabeth Watters

EVENT REPORT JANUARY 2017

indicator is only one of many ‘representations’ of quality characteristics, quality norms or criteria can be represented as quality indicators and quality objectives can be expressed in accordance with the values of quality indicators. Performance or quality indicators are developed to improve transparency, encourage competition and improve quality.

Indicators are constructed to enable the collection of data that help to measure outcomes over time related to objectives for quality VET. Key attributes of an indicator are validity and reliability. Both the processes/procedures for establishing objectives for improving VET quality and the processes/procedures to develop indicators to monitor the attainment of those objectives must be quality assured to produce valid and reliable indicators. Thereafter, quality assurance measures are required to verify the reliability of data collection, analyses and usage.

Quality assurance mechanisms should therefore seek to guarantee, as part of an holistic approach to quality

assurance, that there are processes and procedures in place to ensure the relevance and reliability of information which is fit for purpose. This means:

� the requests for data which measure quality and help to inform practice and policy developments have to be articulated clearly and expressed in a way that enables individual VET providers to be confident about what information should be collected; how it should be presented; and when it should be provided – this helps to ensure that the information is useful and can be used;

� there is clarity over how these data can be, and are, used to improve the quality of provision; to determine what changes are required to ensure the needs of the labour market are met; and to support the design/re-design of qualifications;

� there are transparent and reliable methods for collecting information from a broad range of employers in each sector in order to ensure the

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1A 1B 2A 2B 3 4 5A 5B 6A 6B 7 8A 8B 9A 9B 10A 10B

Chart Title

Series1 Series2 Series3 Series4

skills and competences being acquired by VET learners meet the future needs of the labour market. This can also include the collection of information from recent VET graduates as this helps to ensure the skills they have acquired are relevant and necessary for their personal and professional development as well as the labour market.

Selecting relevant indicators to measure quality – what we know from EQAVET

The EQAVET Recommendation includes a tool-box of ten indicators which cover inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes. They were designed to meet EU

Figure 1 – the use of the EQAVET indicators in initial VET in Member States, 2014

Member States’ national circumstances and priorities. Importantly, usage of these indicators facilitates comparing across countries and helps to make related quality mechanisms more visible and transparent, all of which contributes to enhancing mutual trust in VET systems. Each country that has aligned its quality assurance system with the EQAVET Framework is invited to select only those indicators which are important in the national context. In considering this selection, account has to be taken of a system’s ability to collect, collate, analyse and use the data on the quality of provision. As an example of this selection process, figure 1 illustrates the EQAVET indicators currently used by Member States5.

Always usedSometimes usedNever usedNo response

I N D I C ATO R S

5 Results EQAVET Secretariat Survey, page 144 http://www.eqavet.eu/gns/what-we-do/statistics.aspx

EVENT REPORT JANUARY 2017

For EQAVET indicators under review in the Austria event (5, 6 and 9) the rates of their usage in Member States is of interest. Information related to indicators 6a and 6b, which focus on the extent to which skills acquired in training are used in the workplace, can be difficult to collect e.g. it is costly to undertake a representative survey. Indicator 9 (particularly 9b which looks at the effectiveness of the mechanisms that are used to identify the training needs of the labour market) is not used very often. This reflects the difficulty of designing mechanisms which collect up-to-date information on labour market needs – too often the needs of the labour market move quickly and capturing these needs before they become evident is particularly difficult. Indicators 5a and 5b (placement rate) fare better in terms of usage but are also low in the ‘always used’ category.

Indicator 7 – the unemployment rate indicator is closest to incorporating information on both the quality of the supply of labour and the demand for labour and is widely used: however, we should note that the performance of the economy has a significant impact on this figure. A falling rate of unemployment could be due to an improving economy rather than improvements in the quality of VET provision. This makes the use of this indicator less reliable as a measure of VET quality.

Aligning data collected through the quality assurance system with other data collection exercises

As many national or regional agencies and organisations collect data from both the labour market and the VET

system, there is a risk that information from a quality assurance process can duplicate or contradict other data exercises. In some situations, there is a need for alignment or a need to use existing processes to minimise the data collection burden on the VET system. Also, data collection systems which seek to understand the needs of the labour market can use very different indicators or predictors of future demand. This can make the use of the labour market data alongside information on the quality or quantity of the supply of labour from the VET system hard to manage. This potential mismatch and overlap in the data collection system needs to be considered when quality assuring the collection of fit for purpose information from the VET system.

Ensuring that data collected at the provider regional and national levels are compatible and mutually supportive – Austrian case study

As all systems have many VET providers, it is important to ensure there is consistency and coherence between the data sets and information collected. This is an important aspect of quality assurance as without the ability to use individual provider level data at a system level it is more difficult to design qualifications, to compare the VET supply data with the data on the demand for labour, and make judgements on the quality of provision.

The quality assurance instrument used for initial VET in Austria (QIBB – QualitätsInitiative BerufsBildung), which was discussed in the meeting, is based on a relatively small number of indicators and a large number of instruments which support self-evaluation.

EVENT REPORT JANUARY 2017

Figure 2 – Connections in the Austrian initial VET system (QIBB)

EVENT REPORT JANUARY 2017

It emphasises the importance of feed-back loops and the connections between the VET providers; the regional authorities through the involvement of the inspection system; and the Ministry at national level. This enables information on the quality of VET provision to be monitored and evaluated; and action to be more easily taken to improve quality as there are direct comparisons between individual VET providers and the regions. The QIBB model is most powerful when actors at the VET provider, regional and national level use the same information, produced using the same formats and structures, to analyse the quality and provision and make changes which strengthen the quality of provision. Figure 2 illustrates the connections and feedback systems.

Data from the 678 VET providers are based on the same set of indicators; data are reviewed and analysed at the regional level and then at the national level by the Ministry where there is an internal reporting system that ensures the data from QIBB are checked and reviewed. This analysis is disseminated throughout the system and this creates three effective feedback loops – this is possible because at each level in the system the same indicators are used. Individual VET providers

supplement the QIBB indicators in order to assess success against their own priorities - data from these additional measures are outside the national model. In addition to the on-line data collection processes, QIBB includes regulations and rules for VET providers which ensure that the data are produced using the agreed format in a timely manner. These regulations are part of the quality assurance process as they ensure that the data provided through QIBB are fit for purpose.

Evaluating the effectiveness of the data collection system – the EQAVET approach

The EQAVET Recommendation invites Member States to promote and monitor continuous improvement in their VET systems. For many countries there is a desire to evaluate the effectiveness of their data collection processes as they are an integral part of any quality assurance system. In 2014, EQAVET organised a peer learning6 exercise to look at effective practice in measuring the impact of quality assurance systems. The ability to reflect and analyse how well a data collection system is working and whether it is providing the right information at the right time is an important aspect of evaluating the effectiveness of a national or regional approach to quality assurance. In the QIBB model set out above, the Ministry is part of the system and consequently ensures its own practices and policies are evaluated. This helps to establish new priorities, to refine current practice in the light of experience, and decide whether new or different indicators would be useful.

Data collection, analysis and usage - supporting a VET quality culture

Austrian vocational schools need to, and want to, demonstrate the quality and relevance of their programmes and qualifications and the value of data collection, analysis and usage is taken for granted. The three Principals and staff of VET Schools: HTL Steyr, HTL Spengergasse and Tourismusschule Modul presented their quality management systems and discussed the different data collected by schools in different ways and for different needs. Data are required for external accountability purposes in Austria and whilst the administrative burden is acknowledged so too is the importance of the standardised process and the procedure for their collection. Obligation ensures that data collection is systematic and regular. Instruments increase the reliability and comparability of data, which allows for benchmarking that drives continuous improvement. The need to meet external accountability obligations also steers the internal evaluation process.

From the providers’ perspective, whilst quantitative data are important in themselves, it is the processes for their collection and their analysis and usage that nurture a culture of quality. Processes such as: systematic dialogue with employers, consistent interaction with sector and professional associations, maintaining relationships with past alumni and tapping their

6 The impact of quality assurance systems in initial VET – the policy brief from an EQAVET peer learning activity http://www.eqavet.eu/gns/what-we-do/peer-learning-activities/pla-Vienna-2014.aspx

EVENT REPORT JANUARY 2017

potential as employers of students, role models and benefactors, keeping up to speed with occupational and educational developments, ensuring that staff and students are actively engaged in processes, informing the wider community and being responsive to feedback from interested parties including parents, peer learning and self- and peer review are at the heart of a vibrant VET quality culture.

Some recommendations that emerged from the presentations and discussions

Data are central to any quality assurance system. To be useful the processes and procedures which are used to collect, collate and analyse the data have to be quality assured. It is only in these circumstances that the users of the data will be confident that they can develop practice and policy as part of an overall approach to the quality assurance of VET. To develop and implement effective processes and systems in relation to information and feedback, it is important to:

� ensure that employers are genuinely involved in deciding which indicators should be used, what data should be collected, how the data should be analysed and used, making policy conclusions arising from the analysis of the data on quality: this helps to ensure that information about the quality of the supply of labour is more aligned with employers’ information about their demands for labour;

� develop quality assured data collection processes which are be easy to use; focus on a limited number of indicators; cover system and VET provider levels; are aligned (and possible amalgamated) with other sources of data; and are monitored for their effectiveness in terms of supporting improvements in the quality of VET: it is important to note that the data from different sources have to be easily combined in order for the analysis to inform and improve practice and policy;

� work with former VET trainees (through VET graduate tracking systems) to ensure the skills which learners

EVENT REPORT JANUARY 2017

acquire during their VET programmes are relevant and useful for their subsequent employment;

� find ways to increase the capacity of national systems to support quality assurance in VET. This includes setting priorities and leveraging additional support and building alliances with those stakeholders who have an interest in the quality of VET.

FOCUS GROUP SESSION ON THE PROPOSED ETF FORUM FOR VET QUALITY ASSURANCE

The event provided the opportunity to further discuss and develop the concept of the Forum for VET quality assurance as proposed by ETF as a basis for transnational co-operation. The aim of the Focus Group session was to get the regional (SEE T) view of the Forum proposal.

In brief, the ETF Forum would bring together specialists mainly from ETF partner countries. These specialists would have national level responsibility for quality assurance in their VET system and be nominated by their Government. The ETF approach to VET quality assurance would be promoted through the Forum, which would be modelled on the EU’s EQAVET Network and the European Quality Assurance Reference Framework for VET would serve as a tool for co-operation.

In March 2016, this proposal was discussed with representatives from ETF partner countries in two regions, South Eastern Europe and Turkey (SEE T)

and the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean, in the context of two ETF seminars. There was agreement in both regions that the proposal should be developed further, and there should be an opportunity for country representatives to discuss the ideas in more detail, particularly in relation to developing a ‘regional’ view. The 17 November meeting provided this opportunity for countries in the SEE T ‘region’.

The Focus Group discussion

The Focus Group sought to gauge the level of interest in the proposed ETF Forum and understand better the needs of countries in the ‘region’ that could be addressed in the plans. The Focus Group discussed how the proposed ETF Forum might:

� strengthen intra - region (SEE T) co-operation in VET quality assurance;

� enable SEE T to benefit from inter - region (within the ETF’s 28 Partner Countries) co-operation;

� complement and support SEE T participation in the EQAVET Network.

The meeting included discussions in groups of two or three to identify national priorities for co-operation in VET quality assurance; a mixture of small group work to identify ‘regional’ activities which would be most helpful; plenary sessions to discuss issues which are common for all SEE T partner countries; and individual inputs on whether the idea of a Forum would be attractive at the national level. Taken together these discussions sought to gather comments and reflections

EVENT REPORT JANUARY 2017

to fine-tune the plans for ETF Forum in order to maximise responsiveness to the needs of the region.

Endorsement of the ETF Forum for VET quality assurance

The idea of an ETF Forum was welcomed by all the representatives in the meeting. There was agreement that this type of initiative supported by ETF would be useful in further developing national approaches to quality assurance in VET; help to build national capacity for reform; and help to identify and address common quality assurance challenges. All the participants agreed that the Forum would provide opportunities for ETF partner countries to make contacts and work with each other. It is worth noting that:

� all the participants commented that the ETF Forum was either ‘important’ or ‘very important’ in both the pre and post-event evaluation questionnaires;

� eight out of the ten participants (from Albania, Kosovo, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Serbia and Turkey) completing the post-event questionnaire commented that they could see themselves contributing to an on-line discussion and organising an activity to support international co-operation as part of the work of the Forum.

There was agreement that the ETF proposal to establish a Forum would support the region to better understand the EU Quality Assurance Reference Framework for VET (EQARF) and to help countries participating in the Forum to further develop their quality assurance systems. In particular, it would support members of the Forum to build quality assurance capacity in their system. However, as this would be a new process, it will be important to build a common understanding of what would, and could be expected from individual members of the Forum.

Following the approach used by the EQAVET Network, there was agreement that the Forum would be based on a self-help and collaborative process. There was a recognition that, given the restricted resources and limited availability of personnel, there would need to be an immediate ‘added value’ to participating in the Forum.

The management of the Forum

The proposal is based on ETF developing the strategy plan for the Forum, in consultation with participating partner countries, and providing persons and financial resources to support the development/implementation/evaluation of the work-programme. Organising the Forum will require a clear process for nominating members in order to ensure the concrete activities take place. The Forum will need management support from ETF – not only in the preparation and set-up stages. This should include actions to mobilise key stakeholders at both a national and regional level. On a practical level, there would be a need for a detailed action plan, a time schedule with deadlines, and activities to engage and encourage stakeholders to become involved.

Membership of the Forum

It is proposed that the ETF Forum will comprise one Government nominated specialist from each participating partner country, with national level responsibilities for quality assurance in the VET system. These specialists will be the National Contact Persons. A limited number of ETF Thematic Experts and Country Desk Officers will be members of the Forum and ETF will invite a small number of International Scientific Advisers to join. A key feature of the proposed Forum is the proposal that the NCP would already be a member of a National Committee / Group / Agency for VET quality assurance with representation from all stakeholder groups, or would establish such a national grouping.

The discussion focused on who should be a member of the Forum – whether it should be one person who is the nominated National Contact Person or whether there should be a team. Some participants (e.g. Turkey) requested guidance from ETF on who should be nominated. Appointing the ‘right’ National Contact Persons for the Forum is seen as vital (Kosovo and Albania commented that the NCP should be nominated by the Minister). NCPs will need the full support of their National Authorities (Turkey). Some participants (e.g. Albania) would welcome guidance from ETF on how to set up a national committee/group; on how the NCP could be supported by a national committee/group; on how to build capacity in a national system; and they would welcome the publication of an annual report on the activities of the Forum.

EVENT REPORT JANUARY 2017

Areas for co-operation

There were many suggestions for co-operation. Some were related to the methodology for organising activities (e.g. completing national reports or fiches; reporting on the use and cover of indicators, twinning with Member States; work-shadowing; peer reviews; the establishment of symposia to discuss common challenges; and peer learning). Others focused on specific areas of VET quality assurance related to for example:

� work-based learning and apprenticeships, mainly but not exclusively within a ‘dual model’ (Serbia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia);

� developing an NQF (Serbia);

� national approaches to provider self-evaluation (Albania);

� data collection, collation; analysis (former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Kosovo);

� the use of information feedback loops (former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia);

� the use of quantitative and qualitative indicators, including those used in the EQAVET Recommendation (former Yugoslav Republic of

Macedonia);

� more detail on how the EQAVET Network operates and supports individual members so that SEE T countries can engage more effectively (Croatia, Serbia).

There was a strong recognition that for most countries in the SEE T region the Riga mid-term deliverables needed to be kept in mind as these provide a basis for co-operation. Croatia and Serbia proposed that the Forum focussed on a limited number of key activities which would benefit the membership and restrict the proliferation of disparate and less productive projects.

Activities as part of the Forum

Within the context set out above, there was agreement on the proposed activities for the Forum especially the core activity of monitoring and reporting on new developments in VET quality assurance and the use of an e-platform to discuss common challenges and approaches to quality assurance (the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) and engage a wider audience. In addition, there was a specific proposal for ETF partner countries to ‘twin’ with an EU Member State on quality assurance in VET (Albania). The post-event questionnaire shows that nine out of ten participants have a ‘clear view’ of the range of activities that could be implemented by the Forum.

EVENT REPORT JANUARY 2017

The next steps

The discussions concluded with each participating country identifying how they planned to continue the development of VET quality assurance, and how their participation in the PLA and Focus Group discussion might influence future plans. A range of actions were highlighted which included briefings for the Minister and National Agency; the recognition of the need to agree which indicators were most important in the national context; and the intention to build greater internal capacity to support VET quality assurance reform.

In addition to endorsing the ETF proposal for a Forum, the participants identified a number of activities which could be completed by ETF as part of the development of a strategy plan:

� organise a survey of partner countries to identify priorities;

� prepare a set of concrete actions which focus on self-help and collaboration. These could then be developed and implemented by members of the Forum;

� provide guidance for the nomination of a national contact person and how partner countries could develop national teams;

� develop an approach which prioritises face-to-face meetings to exchange ideas;

� put in place a more user-friendly system for partner countries to report on VET quality assurance developments (updating country fiches);

� continue developing the ETF online instrument for mapping the coverage and usage of EQAVET indicators and consider a process which enables partner countries to analyse EQAVET indicators (or proxies) currently being used in partner countries;

� plan how to disseminate learning from the Forum from the outset.

CONCLUSIONThe participants’ feedback was positive. The event enabled them to compare and contrast their systems with the Austrian VET quality assurance system and it demonstrated how a national approach can be aligned with the EQAVET Framework. The event also helped to strengthen their understanding of issues related to the ‘Riga medium-term deliverable’ and offered examples of related policy and practice for consideration.

Two benefits perceived by the participants are worth highlighting:

� Recognising that it is possible to select only those EQAVET indicators which are useful in the national context: it is not necessary to use every EQAVET indicator as the ‘tool box’ approach set out in the recommendation encourages countries to select what works best for them (as demonstrated in the Austrian situation);

� greater understanding of the importance of data (collected and analysed at all levels in the system – provider, regional and national) as the basis for informing developments and making improvements to the quality of provision.

The main outcome of the Focus Group session was the participants’ endorsement of the ETF Forum for VET Quality Assurance proposal agreeing that international co-operation, to support national efforts to improve VET quality assurance, was ‘very important’.

EVENT REPORT JANUARY 2017

For information on our activities, job and tendering opportunities, please visit our website, www.etf.europa.eu

For other enquiries, please contact: ETF Communication Department E info@etf.europa.eu T +39 011 6302222 F +39 011 6302200

Elizabeth Watters, ETF expert © European Training Foundation, 2017 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. © Photos: ETF

The ETF would like to thank Franz Gramlinger and his colleagues in ARQA-VET, Vienna for their co-operation in organizing the event. We wish to express our gratitude to the Austrian colleagues, pictured below, for their excellent presentations on VET Quality Assurance in Austria. We would also like to say a very special thank you to the Directors of the VET Colleges we visited: Jutta Zemanek, HTL Spengergasse and Werner Schnabl, Tourismusschule Modul and their staff and students. Finally, thank you to the Rapporteur, moderators and presenters and most of all to the participants from the countries of South Eastern Europe and Turkey.

Jürgen Horschinegg, Group II/B - Manager,

BIFIE – Director Federal Ministry of

Education Austria

Franz Gramlinger, Director

Austrian Reference Point for Quality

Assurance in VET Austria

Franz Reithuber, Principal HTBLA Steyr Austria

Michaela Jonach, Quality Expert Austrian Reference Point for Quality Assurance in VET Austria

Lindita Dhima, National Agency for VET and Qualifications, Albania Hedie Gjoni, Electrical School Gjergj Canco, Albania Sigrid Hartl, ARQA-VET, Austria Jouko Luomi, ARQA-VET, Austria Avni Gashi, National Qualifications Authority, Kosovo Elizabeta Jovanovska Radanovikj, VET Centre Skopje, former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Nadica Kostoska, Ministry of Education and Science, former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Veljko Tomic, Ministry of Education, Montenegro Tatijana Glisic, Institute for the Improvement of Education, Serbia

Zoran Spasic, Institute for the Improvement of Education, Serbia Kadir Eren Gülsoy, Ministry of National Education, Turkey Özge Efeoglu, Ministry of National Education, Turkey Tamara Hudolin, Agency for Vocational Education and Training and Adult Education, Croatia Aleksandra Grašič, Slovenian Quality Assurance Reference Point, Slovenia Tina Šaric, ERISEE Keith Brumfitt, EQAVET Eva Jansova, Shawn Mendes, Nadezda Solodjankina, Elizabeth Watters, European Training Foundation

PARTICIPANTS