European Journal of Education, Vol. 45, No.

3, 2010, Part II

Quality and Quality Assurance in Vocational

Education and Training in the Mediterranean
Countries: lessons from the European approach ejed_1443 514..526

JEAN-RAYMOND MASSON, MOUNIR BAATI & ERWIN SEYFRIED

Introduction
This article reflects on the development of the European approach towards quality
and quality assurance in vocational education and training (VET) and its relevance
for reforms in the European Training Foundation (ETF) partner countries. The
analysis is based on an ETF project conducted in 2007-2008 in the Mediterranean
partner countries to promote exchanges of information and experience between
the decision makers and experts of the countries concerned and within the EU.
More precisely, it aims to analyse how quality assurance (QA) initiatives could
promote the quality of systems and support best practices already established in
the EU and in the Mediterranean region in order to lay the foundations for specific
actions at national and regional level. It was part of a larger project, Education and
Training for Employment (ETE), which was implemented by ETF on behalf of the
European Commission. In this context, education and training were seen as some
of the main tools for fostering the economic and social development of the
Mediterranean region and achieving the goal of becoming competitive economies
in open markets established within the political agenda of the Euro-Mediterranean
region. Quality and QA in VET1 were identified as issues to be addressed.
At the European level, although many member states have developed their
own QA systems and mechanisms, the EU designed common tools that could
either be used by some EU Members in order to enhance their own systems or
support those that had not established QA systems. These tools were seen as
being relevant in terms of addressing some of the issues hampering the devel-
opment of VET systems in the Mediterranean region.
In the meantime, through the implementation of different projects in its partner
countries, ETF has been reflecting on the value of EU messages and tools for the
work in partner countries. These reflections were highlighted during the ETF
Advisory Forum meeting in 2006, which focused on the impact of European
vocational training policies on reforms in the partner countries of the EU, and in
a number of publications (McBride, 2005; Masson, 2007; Masson & Pevec, 2008).
The key findings were that EU messages and tools did have value for ETF partner
countries, but there was a great need for prior clarification of concepts relating to
quality and QA, to policy learning and to other issues. EU approaches seem
complex and sometimes ambiguous. In addition, several conditions need to be met
in order for EU tools to be successfully implemented in other contexts. The
differences in cultures, traditions, economic systems and political organisations
between the EU and its partner countries are key factors to consider in designing
and implementing such projects. Therefore, it was interesting to reconsider the

© 2010 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ,
UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
 Jean-Raymond Masson, Mounir Baati & Erwin Seyfried 515

different steps and outcomes of the ETF project on quality and QA in VET in
Mediterranean partner countries in the light of the issues mentioned above. The
following are some key questions:
• How should the system and/or the initiatives in place in Mediterranean
partner countries for QA and improvement in VET be assessed?
• How should the relevance of the European approach to QA in VET be
analysed in the context of the VET systems in Mediterranean partner
countries?
• What lessons should be drawn in the context of further ETF intervention on
QA in VET?
Vocational Education and Training Systems in the Mediterranean
Partner Countries
Most Southern Mediterranean countries have made substantial efforts to reform
their VET systems from a second-choice option for school drop-outs to a more
complex role that includes addressing the skills required by economies willing to
integrate the world market (Seyfried, 2008). These efforts have been translated in
investment in VET centres to modernise equipment and train trainers, together
with greater involvement of employers and employers’ organisations in the defini-
tion of their needs in terms of qualifications. A shift, albeit a slow one, has taken
place from input- to outcome-based training with the introduction of competency-
based training, mainly in the Maghreb region, and a greater emphasis on work-
based training.These efforts began in the mid-90s. During this period,Tunisia and
Morocco signed free-trade agreements with the EU to establish the conditions for
the gradual liberalisation of trade in goods, services and capital. As part of their
strategy to support their economy to be more competitive, some governments in
the region invested in their VET systems to improve their relevance to labour
market needs and provide the economy with intermediate qualifications. These
efforts have been supported by the World Bank and the EU and by many coop-
eration agencies (Agence Française de Développement, GTZ, Canadian Interna-
tional Development Agency).
Various studies conducted by ETF (Carrero & Hakim, 2006; Sultana & Watts,
2007; Homs, 2007; Seyfried, 2008) on the on-going reforms in the region suggest
that many issues are hampering the development of these systems and the quality
of the services to learners, employers and the community in general. In particular,
studies have identified the heavy centralisation of the system, the difficulties of
involving the social partners, the divorce between funding and results, and the lack
of capacity to identify labour market needs.
While autonomous VET institutions are better able to adapt to their immediate
labour market needs by providing the most appropriate and rapid response to their
environments, VET systems in the region remain centralised. Individual institu-
tions cannot make decisions on key issues such as curricula, financial and person-
nel management, and sectors of involvement, thus limiting their capacity to change
and adapt. In this regard, the funding system of VET schools in the Mediterranean
region is quite revealing. Budget allocations are generally based on the previous
year’s allocations and on input measures such as number of students and staff,
rather than on outcomes. There are no performance-based indicators to help to
decide which amounts should be allocated to training institutions, or benchmark-

© 2010 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

516 European Journal of Education, Part II

ing of key indicators to compare performance. Although Tunisia has recently

developed national quality standards (National Framework for Quality Assurance
in VET (NFQVET)) to assess the quality of the training provided by public
centres, they do not impact on the funds that VET centres can obtain.
In most countries of the region, the participation of employers’ organisations
or union representatives in the governance of the system has mainly been in ad
hoc committees at the national and/or sector levels, with no clear mandate or
role.
Efforts are being made by the countries of the region. For example, in
Tunisia and Morocco, the private sector participates in decisions regarding
public investment in TVET. It has actively taken part in feasibility studies on the
creation of VET schools; in identifying skills needs and developing curricula
(competence-based approach); in managing public training institutions; in pro-
viding enterprise-based training in coordination with public training institutions;
and in monitoring and evaluation activities. However, its participation has
revealed both a lack of vision for human resource development in its strategic
objectives and the limits to the skilled staff it is able to mobilise. Skills devel-
opment is not a priority for many enterprises, particularly the small and medium
ones. To allow for some progress, efforts to improve the governance of the VET
system should include the promotion of participative arrangements at regional,
local, sectorial levels in order to involve social partners and other stakeholders in
decision-making processes relating to the content, supply and organisation of
training.
With regard to the identification of labour market needs in terms of the
qualifications required, the analyses carried out by ETF have shown that an
essential function for monitoring the VET system, such as an observatory function,
is absent in almost all countries (Homs, 2007; 2008). Hence, decision makers do
not have reliable information on the labour market at both the national and
regional levels when they decide on issues relating to planning for VET.
Although VET systems in the Mediterranean region are receiving greater
attention from policy makers as an alternative to general education and as part of
a lifelong learning process, more must be done in areas such as governance,
participation of social partners, funding schemes and QA mechanisms to improve
their quality.
The MEDA-ETE Project
The quality and QA component in VET was introduced in 2007 as part of the
MEDA Education and Training for Employment (ETE) to draw up a clear and full
picture of QA measures and approaches in VET in the EU and in the Mediterra-
nean region and to analyse how far these initiatives contribute to improving the
quality of the overall education and training system and governance and building
trust in the output of VET systems. In addition, this component aimed to develop
awareness of EU approaches, promote the exchange of information and experi-
ences between the EU and Mediterranean partner countries, and build the basis
for further actions at national and cross-country levels in the region. The imple-
mentation of the quality and QA component required the organisation of work-
shops (in Turin in July 2007, during the ETE annual forum in April 2008 with
representatives of Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia and Turkey, and
in Rabat in October 2008), the drafting of national inventory reports by Algeria,

© 2010 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

 Jean-Raymond Masson, Mounir Baati & Erwin Seyfried 517

Jordan and Morocco, the organisation of a study visit to Italy to present represen-
tatives from the Mediterranean partner countries with the developments of QA
systems and procedures in a widely decentralised system, and field visits to Algeria,
Egypt and Morocco.
Main Project Findings
It seems (Seyfried, 2008) that the quality of VET provision in the Mediterranean
region is often related to whether the curriculum is recent and competence-based,
the qualifications of teachers and trainers sufficient, and the technical equipment
up to date. Compared with the importance placed on these input factors, there
seems to be less concern with output and outcome factors for assessing the quality
of VET programmes: the adequacy of the skills acquired during training, drop-out
and completion rates, employment rates and the type of employment obtained are
hardly taken into consideration. In most cases, this can be attributed to the
weaknesses in the monitoring and evaluation systems that support the delivery of
VET programmes.
Moreover, the prevailing criteria for QA in the provision of training and the
approach to evaluation in the provision of training, particularly of teachers and
trainers, seem to be inspection.This could be pedagogical inspection of teachers or
administrative inspection to establish to what extent the school is complying with
regulations, especially financial ones. There appears to be no system for assessing
the overall performance of schools in terms of achievements or objectives.
In addition, in some countries, statistical instruments have been put in place,
which, together with the inspection reports, assist decision-making. However, the
information provided by these instruments is used neither systematically nor
efficiently. This is particularly true in Tunisia, which has recently implemented a
set of standards that covers all the functions and processes in a VET school,
from management to the delivery of courses. The indicators defined for each
standard allow for both self-assessment and ‘external’ assessment and give a
clear indication of the performance of the centre. However, there is no clear
policy on the implications of the result of these assessments in terms of rewards
or sanctions.
The same applies to tracer studies on employability. The development of an
observatory function as part of the MEDA-ETE project revealed that different
countries were carrying out such studies, some on a regular basis. There is,
however, no clear indication of the extent to which the existing data are used for
the planning, monitoring and steering of the system. Despite the numerous evalu-
ation activities, a number of stakeholders have stated the need for improvement.
Most tools seem to collect opinions and simply accompany the training pro-
grammes, while the evaluation of the results is still considered to be weak.
Although ETF has supported the Mediterranean partners in defining a common
set of indicators and collecting data on the labour market and training provision,
the usability of the results seems limited.
Institutions that ensure monitoring, evaluation and control of the VET systems
do exist in all Mediterranean partner countries, although their roles and func-
tions vary. In Morocco, a body (Instance Nationale d’Evaluation du Système
d’Education et de Formation) was established in 2006 under the supervision of the
Higher Council of Education to evaluate the effectiveness of the education system.
A first report on the internal evaluation (Etat et perspectives du système

© 2010 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

518 European Journal of Education, Part II

d’éducation et de formation,Volume 2, Rapport analytique) was published in 2008

and an external evaluation is planned for 2010.
QA Mechanisms in the Mediterranean Region
Implementation of QA tools is often narrowly targeted. For example, in Tunisia a
set of standards with associated indicators has been defined that covers all pro-
cesses of a VET school, so that the performance of any school can be assessed and
an action plan for improvement devised. However, the other components of the
VET system – such as the institution in charge of curricula development and the
training of trainers – which can also have an impact on the performance of VET
schools are not covered.The quality approach in this case has been targeted at only
one component of the process of designing and delivering courses. Thus, the
implementation of QA approaches is often partial, which leads to poor levels of
effectiveness.The QA system that is developed often does not cover the four phases
of the quality cycle. The first phase dealing with planning seems to be neglected,
the third dealing with evaluation is limited to inspection and the last dealing with
review and change operates on the basis of political decisions rather than on the
evaluation of existing policies. Even in Tunisia the NFQVET is applied only to
VET centres. Hence, the issues relating to policy objectives, the mechanisms for
assessing the degree to which quality criteria are fulfilled and the procedure for
assessing quality in the planning process are not addressed. Therefore the QA
systems that are implemented in the region cannot make organisations responsible,
as they should be, for compliance with standards and achievement of predefined
quality objectives.
In many Mediterranean countries there are plans to establish a recognised body
at either national or sectorial level for quality labelling and accreditation of training
organisations (Seyfried, 2008). But it is only in higher education that the QA
culture has emerged strongly: new legislation, standards and accreditation rules
have been developed, agencies for accreditation of institutions have been created,
and guidelines and manuals for institutional self-assessment have been distributed.
In the context of an 18-month project in which activities targeted only Algeria,
Egypt, Jordan and Morocco and the main output was a cross-country report, it was
not possible to expect more concrete achievements. As emphasised by Seyfried
(2008) and in the ETF Synthesis Report (2009), the project showed a general
acceptance of the European approach to quality and QA in VET. During meetings
and study visits, experts and stakeholders in Mediterranean partner countries
showed interest in questions relating to governance (particularly the autonomy of
VET institutions and partnerships with employers) and accreditation mechanisms
(particularly the existence of institutions supporting quality policies). They also
expressed the need to link quality and QA with other aspects of VET reform, such
as the implementation of competence-based approaches and National Qualifica-
tions Frameworks (NQFs) (ETF, 2009; Leney, 2009). However, no operational
conclusions were drawn up in the context of the project.
Indeed, as was apparent during the seminars and meetings, there was a dis-
crepancy: on the one hand, the limited interest in the outcomes of the European
approaches, on the other the marked interest in the concrete measures undertaken
by some Mediterranean countries, namely the Tunisian reference quality frame-
work for VET centres. This raises the question of how far the European approach
is relevant for the specific situation of the Mediterranean partners.

© 2010 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

 Jean-Raymond Masson, Mounir Baati & Erwin Seyfried 519

The Relevance of the European Approach to Quality and Quality Assurance

The EU has developed a common tool for quality and QA that will not replace the
current QA systems and mechanisms implemented by the member states. It will
act as a reference instrument to help member states to monitor improvement of
their VET systems.The main tool was the Common Quality Assurance Framework
(CQAF) that then became a European Quality Assurance Framework2 (EQARF).
The CQAF quality model is based on the four steps of the Deming-cycle (plan,
do, check, act) and is thus a basic strategic management tool that is not designed
specifically for quality and QA in VET but is applicable to all sectors. The set of
indicators covers the entire cycle of VET activities, is focused on outputs and
outcomes of training provision, and supports the common European objectives for
quality in VET. As such, it is an effective framework for analysing the situation of
the VET systems in the Mediterranean partner countries. It has revealed the
problems of the planning function. The same situation prevails at the implemen-
tation stage, in which individual VET institutions have very little autonomy. The
evaluation function, which is limited to inspection, is very much underdeveloped
and also lacks the means to analyse effectively the needs of the labour market. In
this context, the review function is governed by state initiatives and is detached
from a proper analysis of the impact of on-going reforms and policies.
There is no doubt that CQAF is relevant for VET systems in general and in the
Mediterranean countries in particular, as it can be used to analyse systems and
highlight weaknesses. However, it is not a coherent framework that can be imme-
diately applied; it is rather an instrument that promotes common understanding and
a culture of mutual learning in the EU. Its application is voluntary and EU member
states are invited to expand the indicators according to their priorities. Although the
recommendation favours a combination of internal and external evaluation mecha-
nisms, reference is made only to a commonly developed guide for self-assessment of
VET providers. No guidelines for external monitoring or public accreditation of
VET providers have been included, since it remains a national responsibility. Hence,
when referring to EU models, tools and experiences3 in VET in the context of the
Mediterranean partners, it should be borne in mind that the quality framework in
the EU is a quite general and flexible approach and that it is up to each country to
shape its own QA system. For cooperation between European member states with
their highly diversified VET systems, this is a particular strength, but for the
Mediterranean partners it may be seen as vague and difficult to apply.
The EU Concept of Quality in VET
QA is seen in the EQARF recommendation as ‘an instrument for continuous
improvement of VET, (. . .) [which] involves a culture of quality improvement,
(. . .) and implies a systematic approach to quality’ (European Commission,
2008a, p. 3). Quality improvement refers to the objectives of ‘increasing employ-
ability, improving the matching between training supply and users’ needs, and
promoting better access to lifelong learning’ (European Commission, 2008a, p. 6).
In the Bordeaux Communiqué, enhancing the quality and attractiveness of VET
systems is the second of the four priority areas for future action4. Here, promoting
quality and excellence covers seven priority actions covering key dimensions of the
reform5. Earlier, the Maastricht Communiqué (European Commission, 2004)
established strong links between quality and relevance and insisted on the need for

© 2010 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

520 European Journal of Education, Part II

the systematic involvement of all key partners, particularly regarding QA. Thus, in
the EU, quality in VET refers to a range of dimensions and does not have a
well-delimited definition. The focus on quality is a result of the diversification of
the needs of trainees and employers. The quality concept is driven by a growing
European market, particularly for continuous VET, and the liberation of market
forces. The quality subject is linked to a broad range of reforms covering:
(i) the architecture of VET pathways and their links with other components
of education and training and the labour market;
(ii) the content and design of training programmes, qualifications and peda-
gogical aspects;
(iii) governance, partnership and financing issues.
QA is a means of ensuring that quality standards are achieved by private and public
providers and that the reforms are implemented efficiently. In EU countries,
particularly with the impetus given by the Copenhagen process, these reforms have
already received substantial attention. For the Mediterranean partners (as well as
for most ETF partner countries), where quality is at stake at all levels of the VET
systems, the European multidimensional and global approach to quality simply
highlights a range of fundamental issues where action should be taken. It can serve
as a guideline to identify strategic priorities for future reforms, but it does not
provide a well-delimited concept to be implemented in the short term.
In the EU, the idea is widely shared (European Commission, 2008) that the
quality and attractiveness of VET can be substantially improved by reinforcing the
links between the components of the education and training systems, in particular
the permeability and continuity of learning paths between VET, general education
and higher education. This makes sense in EU countries, where borders between
VET and higher education are blurred (McCoshan et al., 2008; Dunkel & Le
Mouillour, 2006) and where general, technical and vocational initial education
come under the same education ministry. But it is much more difficult to conceive
and implement in Mediterranean partner countries, where a culture of elitism
prevails and VET is considered to be a low-status alternative to higher education
(Sultana & Watts, 2007, p. 21), where few pathways exist, and where initial VET
comes under a specific ministry (or is divided between several technical minis-
tries), with little cooperation with the education ministry (Masson & Pevec, 2008).
The Ambiguities of the EU Approach: an implicit culture of governance
The EQARF recommendation is introduced as ‘an instrument for continuous
improvement of VET, based on a quality cycle, (. . . which supposes) an explicit
focus on the roles of actors at different levels and the ways they relate to each other’
(European Commission, 2008a). Even if the ultimate goal is to improve the VET
system, the framework should be ‘a means of giving a new impetus to the con-
tinuous improvement of quality management practices’. Although not mentioned
explicitly, this new culture of quality improvement is implicitly about developing a
new governance model (Grek et al., 2009) based on the decentralisation of respon-
sibilities, the autonomy of VET providers, the accountability of training delivery,
the transparency of results achieved, public–private partnerships, and the evalua-
tion and measurement of achievements.
The quality cycle, the related criteria and the indicators in the recommenda-
tion, as well as the accompanying guidelines for the self-assessment of training

© 2010 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

 Jean-Raymond Masson, Mounir Baati & Erwin Seyfried 521

providers focus on the results and outcomes of VET processes and systems. The
outcomes are the learners’ achievements, their situation in the labour market after
graduation, and the satisfaction of customers, both students (graduated or not)
and their employers. Schools and training centres are urged to refer to such
performance indicators, to develop projects and action plans in close partnership
with local and regional stakeholders, and to adopt appropriate and transparent
management tools. Teachers and administrators are asked to implement flexible
pedagogical tools that support the success of each learner. European experiences
in developing QA systems highlight the key role played by local governments in
improving quality in education (Simola et al., 2009 for Finland; Croxford et al.,
2009 for Scotland).
The new culture of governance is both a top-down and a bottom-up process.
The central state (ministry or national agency) therefore needs to set up appro-
priate QA procedures to manage, monitor, assess and review the coherence of local
activities with the nationwide frameworks.This requires the adoption of policies on
certification, assessment and accreditation, including new performance-based
financing procedures, with new management tools implemented at local level, and
new types of partnership with other stakeholders, including employers. It also
implies the development and systematic use of appropriate statistics and/or the
setting up of observatories. Thus, although there is a profound unity in the
approaches foreseen in the recommendation, there is also a wide variety of policies
and reforms which are an integral part of the new culture of governance. In fact,
the European quality framework may apply as a guiding principle to many reforms
undertaken in VET.
However, this new culture of governance is not very clearly expressed in the
recommendation or in the documents developed in the context of the Copenhagen
process (Council of the European Union, 2004). This is because EU systems are
very diverse, since decentralisation has not been implemented in all countries and,
when implemented, it has been done so differently and covers very different
schemes and items. Therefore, as the EU does not have exclusive competence in
the areas of education and training, its message refers only to general principles
that are intended to be applied in different ways. Although implicitly calling for a
new culture of governance, the flexible EU framework for quality cannot easily be
used to challenge the over-centralised approaches in some ETF partner countries.
The new mode of governance can appear simply as a long-term goal, without
indicating what needs to be progressively changed and what new items should be
introduced in the short, medium or long term.
Thus, it is clear that it will be difficult to implement such an approach in
Mediterranean partner countries, where VET systems are very centralised and
compartmentalised. Other ETF work (Nielsen et al., 2008, p. 37; Baati & Schuh,
2008, p. 68) has identified the types of problem linked to the politicised model of
governance (Chakroun, 2008), and in particular the difficulties of cooperation
between national stakeholders, the resistance of the public system to accept new
stakeholders (Mayen, 2008, pp. 20–23), and the lack of a tradition of analysis and
data collection (Chakroun, 2008, p. 13; Homs, 2007). In this respect, the interest
shown by Mediterranean partner countries in implementing NQFs is understand-
able, since they may be defined and implemented in a centralised way. They even
offer ways and means to better control non-formal training providers, without
changing the traditional administrative system.

© 2010 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

522 European Journal of Education, Part II

A Loose and Ambiguous Framework

Although the new governance model that underlies the EQARF recommendation fits
well with VET systems in EU countries, it can be seen to be not sufficiently precise
or even prescriptive for Mediterranean partner countries, leaving many issues open,
with some risks. As already mentioned, the first danger is that over-centralisation will
be reinforced by implementing or even imposing some tools in certain subsectors
without changing anything in the global management of the overall system.
By stating that the European quality framework can apply at both system and
provider level, the recommendation may lead to think that it can be implemented
independently at both levels, or even implemented at one level only. This is what
happens in some Mediterranean countries, where QA approaches have been
applied in some segments of the VET system, mainly for private training providers,
while public providers continue to work under the traditional governance system,
reinforcing the segmentation between subsystems. This does not mean that no
further steps will be implemented. There is evidence from EU countries that
developing QA has not followed a linear and harmonious process (Simola et al.,
2009, p. 5; Croxford et al., 2009, pp. 4–5). The examples show that processes have
often come from external pressures and not from the central state authorities
alone. They have progressed through various steps, through tensions and even
conflicts between the state authorities and the providers or between different
stakeholders. Developing a coherent system for QA in VET has a long way to go,
and even for the EU countries there is still work ahead. This is why the recom-
mendation asks for active participation in the European Network for Quality
Assurance in VET (ENQA-VET) and the development of exchanges and mutual
learning as one of the five recommendations, showing that the QA framework has
to be creatively shaped to national, regional and local conditions in all countries.
Another difficulty with the EU quality framework is the lack of precision in
some definitions and the complete absence of guidelines for external QA mecha-
nisms. Evaluation and assessment, for example, are defined by the CQAF as
‘designing evaluation mechanisms according to the context, defining the frequency
and scope of evaluations, and providing evidence of the findings of the evaluation
to those concerned, including strengths, areas for improvement and recommen-
dations for action. In general, the assessment and evaluation phase consists of two
parts, i.e. the collection and processing of data and the discussions on the results
which have been achieved. An important challenge is to avoid the collection of
useless data’ (European Commission, 2005). This definition does not mention the
need to counterbalance self-assessment with a view from outside, and hence the
necessary independence between implementation and evaluation, although this is
now standard in most EU countries. As has been stressed above, in the Mediter-
ranean partner countries, evaluation usually means inspection and is mostly
focused on the use of the input data. An evaluation system that combines internal
QA (self-assessment) and external accreditation processes seems to be lacking.
Furthermore, in Tunisia and Morocco, the accreditation body remains the ministry
in charge of VET, which is seen by VET providers as a controlling institution.
What is missing in the European quality framework that would enable its better use
in countries outside the EU is a list of good policy practices implemented in the EU and
worldwide. As an example, most of the Western Balkans have introduced or are intro-
ducing national exams and/or certificates at the end of secondary education (including

© 2010 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

 Jean-Raymond Masson, Mounir Baati & Erwin Seyfried 523

VET). One interesting side-effect has been to tackle corruption in entry to university.
Per-capita financing schemes or better career progression in teachers’ salaries, which
would have a substantial positive impact,could also be introduced,as could tracer studies
on the impact of the relevance of the curricula for labour market needs.
To summarise, the EU approach to QA in VET appears as a panoply of tools, the
most important of which are the CQAF, the self-assessment guide and the ten
indicators, which all contribute to a general culture of governance based on decentrali-
sation, autonomy and partnership and cover all aspects of the VET reforms in the
context of lifelong learning. Rather than a coherent framework, this is a set of
incomplete and insufficiently fine-tuned tools for immediate action. Nevertheless, they
are indispensable ingredients of an overall new governance culture. Quality improve-
ment strategies can only be gradual, with short, medium and long-term goals. It would
be unadvisable to implement some of the tools without a broad and long-term strategy.
Quality Assurance and National Qualification Frameworks
Since the EQARF provides a general philosophy that could be seen as being more
important than the tools already identified, the European approach to QA in VET
differs from the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) approach and the
EUROPASS instrument for transparency, which both provide well-delimited tools,
although they are embedded in wider concepts.
The development of NQFs in the Mediterranean partner countries with ref-
erence to the EU recommendation on EQF has received strong support from
policy makers and first steps have been taken, particularly in Egypt, Jordan,
Morocco and Tunisia. Meanwhile, much less attention has been given to quality
and QA, although the recommendation on EQF includes a list of common prin-
ciples for QA in higher education and in VET in its annex (European Parlia-
ment, Council, 2008, p. 7). In addition to principles aimed at providers, these
principles also cover the global system, including clear references to cooperation
with and involvement of all relevant stakeholders at all levels in order ‘to ensure
overview, coherence, synergy and system-wide analysis’. Even if it is not as detailed
as the draft recommendation on EQARF, it is based on the same concept.
However, first experiences of developing NQFs in ETF partner countries and
territories show a tendency to impose them by regulation (Albania, Kosovo,
Montenegro, Tunisia), before or instead of having achieved in-depth dialogue with
stakeholders, including social partners. This centralised way of implementing NQFs
appears to be very different from, and even contradictory to, the new governance
culture embedded in the QA philosophy. If NQFs are based only on education diplo-
mas and certificates, without taking into account qualifications that are developed in the
non-formal sector and in companies, this will contribute to increase fragmentation.
Thus, ETF experiences in the Mediterranean region have shown that NQFs
and QA are perceived as two different tools for supporting VET system reform. But
in order to reap the full benefits of the EU recommendation on EQF, NQFs need
to be seen as tools that are parallel and complementary to specific tools from the
QA panoply, all embedded in the global QA philosophy on governance. In this
respect, a framework for quality and QA should be seen as a necessary precondi-
tion to fully exploit the potential of NQFs. QA would help to focus on the learner,
to bring the client to the forefront and to create tailor-made training programmes,
taking into account the demands of local employers, regional labour markets and
the individual needs of trainees, by fully respecting NQFs.

© 2010 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

524 European Journal of Education, Part II

Conclusion
Mediterranean partners are modernising their VET systems, but many issues
remain unresolved. In particular, the heavy centralisation and the difficulties of
efficiently involving social partners are hampering the development and the quality
of the systems. QA initiatives in VET are developing, but they are fragmented and
partial and lack monitoring and assessment. Moreover, they are being developed at
local level, while little change is taking place at system level. Analysing the situation
in relation to the quality cycle shows the difficulties of involving partners in the
planning function and the lack of development of the evaluation function.
The EU approach to quality and QA in VET is a good framework to analyse the
achievements, issues and challenges of the VET reforms. It has helped to identify
systemic issues concerning the role of VET in the education and training system as
a whole and its relevance to the needs of the labour market and society. It also
helped to raise questions about performance, functioning and governance and
provided a platform for discussions between the EU and stakeholders in Mediter-
ranean partner countries about quality and QA in VET. Moreover, it seems to
provide general guidelines for identifying strategic priorities, as well as a general
and flexible approach allowing each country to shape its own QA system.
The EU approach to quality and QA in VET has brought about some very
significant changes in the way VET and education in general are conceived. This
includes an orientation towards outcomes and performance, a focus on clients, a
new model of management for schools, the promotion of transparency, partnership
approaches at all levels, separation between delivery and evaluation, and the
introduction of self-assessment. The approach is not feasible for top-down imple-
mentation, but must include encouragement of bottom-up initiatives, resulting in
self-motivation and ownership of the process on the part of local actors. Thus, full
implementation demands more than the modernisation of existing patterns. It
demands in-depth systemic changes and it is not clear how far Mediterranean
partners are ready for such changes, in particular in the governance of the system.
The limited resources allocated to the MEDA-ETE project on quality and QA,
as well as its limited duration, did not allow for more than an exchange of quality
and QA practices in VET between Mediterranean partners and EU countries and
a first exposure to the EU approaches. One limitation is that the project was a
simple component juxtaposed with other components, with little interaction
between them. Indeed, common work should have been promoted between the
quality and QA component and the components relating to developing the obser-
vatory function, apprenticeships, vocational guidance and others. Quality and QA
messages could have been seen as overarching messages covering the whole
MEDA-ETE project and the parallel project on developing NQFs.
Going further and making the best use of the EQARF in Mediterranean partner
countries would need more in-depth work and could be facilitated by the development
of mutual learning through networks such as the ENQAVET,which was set up in Europe
to give a ‘new impetus to the continuous improvement of quality management practices’
in VET (European Commission, 2008a, p. 3), and also by working closely with the
ENQA VET, as proposed in the final report of the ETF project (Seyfried, 2008).
In this context it is important to clarify some ambiguities in the EQARF
recommendation, in particular that the EU approach promotes a new culture of
governance that moves away from input steering and control towards an output

© 2010 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

 Jean-Raymond Masson, Mounir Baati & Erwin Seyfried 525

orientation and recognition of achievements. It is an overarching approach, closely

linked to reforms undertaken by its partner countries relating to issues such as
supporting the involvement of social partners, improving efficiency and effective-
ness in financing VET and developing adult training and NQFs.
NOTES
1. Although the work undertaken in the context of the MEDA-ETE project
makes reference to technical and vocational education and training (TVET)
rather than vocational education and training (VET), the technical routes were
not considered in the component on quality and quality QA. Therefore, the
term ‘VET’ is used throughout.
2. EQARF is intended to serve as a reference instrument to help member states
to promote and monitor improvement of their VET systems, based on
common European references. It did not exist at the time of the project, but
most of its components already existed as part of the Council Conclusions on
Quality Assurance in VET set up in May 2004.
3. The common European principles for the identification and validation of
non-formal and informal learning, Europass, the European Qualifications
Framework, the European Credit System for VET and the EQARF.
4. Implementing the tools and schemes already developed; enhancing the quality
and attractiveness of VET systems; improving the links between VET and the
labour market; and strengthening European cooperation.
5. Developing quality assurance mechanisms; increasing investment in the train-
ing of teachers and trainers; basing VET policies on evidence; developing
national qualification systems and national qualifications frameworks based on
learning outcomes; promoting innovation and creativity; developing language
learning; and improving the permeability and continuity of learning paths
between VET, general education and higher education.
REFERENCES
Baati, M. & Schuh, P. (Eds) (2008) Learning from failure: how effective is a
standardised policy learning approach? Policy learning in action (pp. 65–72)
(Turin, European Training Foundation).
Carrero Perez, E. & Hakim, G. (2006) Reforming Technical and Vocational Educa-
tion and Training in the Middle East and North Africa, Experiences and Challenges
(Turin, European Training Foundation).
Chakroun, B. (2008) What can we learn from policy learning? Policy learning in
action (pp. 11–18) (Turin, European Training Foundation).
Council of the European Union (2004) Quality Assurance inVocational Education
and Training (Brussels).
Croxford, L., Grek, S. & Jeelani Shaik, F. (2009). Quality assurance and
evaluation in Scotland: promoting self-evaluation within and beyond the
country. Journal of Education Policy, 24, pp. 179–193.
Dunkel, T. & Le Mouillour, I. in cooperation with Teichler, U. (2006)
‘Through the Looking-Glass’: Diversification and differentiation in vocational edu-
cation and training and higher education; (Final report Kassel University,
October 2006).
European Commission (2004) Maastricht Communiqué on the Futures Priorities for
the Enhanced European cooperation in vocational education and training (Brussels).

© 2010 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

526 European Journal of Education, Part II

European Commission (2005) Fundamentals of A ‘Common Quality Assurance

Framework’ (CQAF) for VET in Europe (Brussels).
European Commission (2008) Bordeaux Communiqué on Enhanced European
Cooperation in Vocational Education and Training (Brussels).
European Commission (2008a) Proposal for a Recommendation of the European
Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of a European Quality Assur-
ance Framework for Vocational Education and Training (Brussels).
European Parliament, Council (2008) Recommendation on the establishment of the
European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning (Brussels).
European Training Foundation (2009) Regional cooperation in education and
training: the whole is more than the sum of its parts (Turin, European Training
Foundation).
Grek, S., Lawn, M., Lingard, B. & Varjo, J.(2009). North by northwest: quality
assurance and evaluation in European education, Journal of Education Policy,
24, pp. 121–133.
Homs, O. (2007) Euromed Observatory Function, Indicators for the governance ofVET
systems; methodological note (Turin, European Training Foundation).
Homs, O. (2008) Euromed Observatory Function. Objectives, results, instruments and
evolution. ETF report (Turin, EuropeanTraining Foundation).
Leney, T. (2009) Qualifications that count: Strengthening the recognition of qualifica-
tions in the Mediterranean region.Thematic studies. ETF report (Turin, European
Training Foundation).
Masson, J-R. (2007) The contribution of European vocational training policy to
reforms in the partner countries of the European Union, European Journal of
Vocational Training, 41, pp. 43–59.
Masson, J-R. & Pevec, S. (2008) EU policies and VET reforms in ETF
partner countries- What more to learn?, Policy learning in action (Turin,
European Training Foundation) (pp. 73–83).
Mayen, G. (2008) The ETF’s interventions in Jordan, a fine line between advice
and guidance, Policy learning in action (pp. 19–26) (Turin, ETF).
Mc Bride, V. (2005) Using the Copenhagen process to facilitate national qualifi-
cation framework strategies in South Eastern Europe, European Journal of
Education, 40, pp. 315–321.
Mc Coshan, A., Drozd, A., Nelissen, E. & Nevala, A-M. (2008) Beyond the
Maastricht Communiqué: developments in the opening up ofVET pathways and the
role of VET in labour market integration (ECOTEC).
Nielsen, S., Karkkainen, O., Varcin, R. & Vos, A. (2008) Policy learning – The
experience of impact analysis in Turkey. Policy learning in action (pp. 27–38)
(Turin, ETF).
Seyfried, E. (2008) Quality and Quality Assurance in Technical and Vocational
Education and Training (Turin, European Training Foundation)
Simola, H., Rinne, R.,Varjo, J., Pitkanen, H. & Kauko, J. (2009) Quality assur-
ance and evaluation in Finnish compulsory schooling: a national model or just
unintended effects of radical decentralisation? Journal of Education Policy, 24,
pp. 163–178.
Sultana, R. & Watts, A. (2007) Career Guidance in the Mediterranean Region.
Comparative Analyses. MEDA-ETE Regional Project (Turin, European Training
Foundation).

© 2010 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.