Quality Assurance in Validation
Different paths towards the development of validation have also lead to different approaches to quality assurance in validation. The first pathway is institutional and legislation-supported development of processes, methods and tools for recognition and validation of prior learning, with educational institutions keeping most of the control over the certification (France, Czech republic, UK and Scotland). A second pathway focuses on assessment and recognition in the world of work, with an important role of employers (Netherlands). The third pathway is professional licensing of immigrant professionals (Canada) The and the fourth pathway is focused on personal and social recognition through self-assessment and portfolio, without formal accreditation (bilan de competences in France, recognition process in the Netherlands).
This diversity of approaches also leads to different mechanisms for addressing quality assurance, each of which has its specificities, advantages and disadvantages. If you want to know more about the different pathways towards quality in Europe read the Report on Quality Assurance in VNFIL
In the project Peer Review for VNFIL Extended providers from different countries with different approaches to quality assurance in validation met each other in Peer Review. It turned out that the different approaches towards quality were not an obstacle in Peer Review. In the contrary, coming from different countries, having different backgrounds in validation and quality assurance is enriching and stimulates learning. In such a rich variety of approaches Peer Review stimulates mutual learning and alignment. Read more about the added value of Peer Review in the Qualitative study on Peer Review.
Based on these findings the countries that were involved in the project Peer Review for VNFIL Extended formulated their National Strategieson implementing Peer Review.
On top of that the project partners developed a European Policy PaperThe aim of this policy paper is to highlight the main policy outcomes of the project, explain the benefits of Peer Review for VNFIL systems in Europe as well as outline the added value of Peer Review for current European policies. This document is mainly addressed to representatives of the European Commission (EC), the European Parliament (EP), the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), the European Committee of the Regions (CoR), and the other European agencies such as CEDEFOP, ETF, etc., but can be enriching for a much broader public.