Quality indicators in vocational education and training: International perspectives

This study undertakes an exploration of the ways in which quality is defined and understood within vocational education and training (VET) systems, and the indicators that various systems have adopted. It considers the stakeholders in the quality process, various approaches to quality, how quality is defined for the purposes of measurement and reporting, the objectives of quality, and the varied nature of indicators of quality.

The study examines only countries that have well-established and documented VET systems, from which Australia might learn in its ongoing evaluation of its own system. Although mindful of the importance of context in considerations of each country's choice of indicators, it was determined that it was beyond the scope of this study to provide extensive background descriptions. The countries chosen were: Denmark, England, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, Scotland, South Africa, Sweden, the Netherlands and the United States of America. These individual cases are prefaced by overviews of two systems that operate on a federated basis: the European Union and the United Kingdom.

After documenting the indicators of quality which are being used in the above-mentioned countries, this study proceeds to map the indicators in various ways before proceeding to analyse them and to pose some questions that are prompted by this analysis. The quality indicators identified in the study have also been brought together into an evaluative framework consisting of four main elements: background context, stakeholder expectations, the training process, and training outcomes. The application of process and outcome indicators is then plotted country by country in order to reveal regional preferences. Finally, the study indicates which groupings of quality indicators occur most frequently in the countries under consideration.

The countries included in the study employ a diverse range of quality indicators to monitor quality within their VET systems. Some quality indicators are fairly universally represented, such as attainment, participation, progression, retention, success and completion. The nature of the learner's experience and the human, physical, and financial resourcing which support it are also commonly measured.

Other quality indicators which occur frequently but less universally include employment and other labour market outcomes, representation of minorities, outreach, access and equal opportunity. Interestingly, it is in this middle frequency group that quality of training appears. That this fundamental quality is difficult to quantify is reflected in the following broad range of indicators that various systems have adopted in their efforts to measure it:

• range, content and availability of courses provided
• cost effectiveness and affordability of training
• management of the training process
• the location and duration of training
• relevance, credibility and utility of training
• assessment processes
• competence of teachers delivering the programs.

Finally, there are those indicators which occur least frequently. These include such indicators as collaboration, innovation, and the conduct of research.

The perception of whether or not a VET system is effective can obviously vary from one stakeholder group to another. Ideally, all stakeholders must feel they have sufficient opportunity to influence the objectives that are set and also the selection of quality indicators used to measure the attainment of those objectives. VET systems that are disproportionately influenced by certain stakeholders at the expense of others may be regarded as less effective on the whole than those which are more inclusive, as this typically results in alienated stakeholders expressing dissatisfaction with the system.

Where VET quality systems are based on national qualifications frameworks and formalised standards for the registration of providers there is generally a higher degree of consistency in outcomes than in systems where certification of qualifications and accreditation of providers is less systematic.

One other important factor in ensuring that VET systems remain effective is to plan for them to be evaluated and revised in a timely manner. Like Australia, many of the countries included in this study have only recently introduced new or significantly revised national VET quality systems. It is imperative that these new systems be evaluated to check that they are producing the expected outcomes, that these outcomes are appropriate and that they are satisfying the expectations of all stakeholders.

The experiences of international VET systems which have begun to address a range of challenges provide models for VET in Australia. There is much being done very well in Australia, as such an international study shows, but there are lessons we can learn from others about accommodating the aspirations of learners in a changing society and better meeting broad community needs.

The report concludes by identifying some of the quality indicators that are used in other countries but are not currently part of the Australian system, and encourages the VET community to debate the merits of their inclusion into future revisions of Australian VET quality frameworks.