Arquitectura

2008

One of the instruments that the ETF uses for policy learning is the peer learning instrument. There are a number of different peer learning approaches. The ETF peer learning approach is based on the principle of establishing a learning platform which is carefully facilitated by the ETF around the major policy issues which are of concern in the countries that take part in the exercise. The following methodology is used by the ETF:

1. A common topic for policy learning is decided in cooperation with countries involved.

2. A country background paper in the form of a self-study document is prepared by the country peers – usually a combination of policy-makers and VET experts.

3. A common concept paper based on the selected topic for peer learning is elaborated by the ETF. 4. Visits are organised in the countries that

participate in the exercise. They are accompanied by peer workshops for reflection and experience sharing.

5. A cross-country synthesis report on the state of the art in the chosen topic is prepared.

6. Dissemination is organised in different forms, such as through articles, country workshops, a regional conference and other follow-up activities. Involving policy-makers, education experts and

practitioners as peers in this way aims at providing better targeted capacity building for VET policies and policy outcomes.65

Why did the ETF choose peer learning as the policy learning instrument for the topic of social partner involvement in education and training?

One way of developing awareness of the importance of key issues in education and training is to enable

policy-makers and social partners to meet people who are or have been involved in developing strategies for such policies or in implementing them. Stakeholders in VET are increasingly looking beyond their borders to seek

information, examples of good practice and advice from peers in order to launch, develop or implement new policies in their own national context. In the last decades of EU action programmes in education, it has been proven repeatedly that presenting your own system to foreigners is an excellent learning exercise. The policy-makers and social partners taking part in the 2008 peer learning activity therefore had to prepare a programme to present social partnership structures and practice in their own country to their peers from the other countries. This methodology was used to facilitate learning to cope with the challenges faced by policy-makers and social partners in VET reform. (See BOX 1)

BOX 1: COMMON ISSUES OF CONCERN FOR SOCIAL PARTNERS AND POLICY-MAKERS AS PEERS IN ETF PEER LEARNING

In the 2008 ETF peer learning exercise, the following issues were used to stimulate the professional debate among social partners and policy-makers as peers:

Social dialogue: Which are the main topics for dialogue between authorities and social partners in education and training? Which topics are of common interest, and where do interests conflict? What is the right balance of social dialogue at national, regional, local and sectoral level?

Education and training practice: Are there good practice examples of social partner involvement in specific areas, such as labour market needs assessment, qualification development, curriculum development, practical training, quality assurance, and examination and certification? What advice can be given to policy-makers, employer organisations and trade unions on realistic strategies for increasing their involvement at different levels?

School-enterprise relations: What are the areas of common interest, and what examples of good practice are there?

The ETF peer learning process lasted for about one year. By the end of cycle, the social partners had compared, discussed and learnt from their experiences as peers. What they had learnt represented new knowledge in the context of their professional environment. An overview of the insights and conclusions acquired by peers is

presented in the following sections.

Social dialogue, peers concluded, is still at an early stage in all countries. Employer organisations have only been set up in recent years and are trying to develop their role as partners in policies and collective agreements and to position themselves against the traditionally influential chambers of commerce and industry. Trade unions have had a longer tradition, but are also adapting to the new economic and social conditions. Social partnership in the region is mainly tripartite, with a relatively strong role of the government in facilitating social dialogue. In the area of lifelong learning, several institutions and mechanisms (such as social and economic councils, VET councils, occupational sector councils, national qualifications frameworks, and VET agencies and centres) have been set up at the national level, where social partners participate in the discussion about policies and legislation. In spite of all these mechanisms the social dialogue is often ineffective and social partners in south eastern Europe still feel ignored or marginalised when it comes to critical decisions in VET reform. The peers found that in all four countries social partners are suffering from relatively low membership, a situation that calls into question their representativeness. Their organisation at local and sector level is often weak. Social partner organisations require greater commitment, a sharper focus on the key issues, 84 ETF YEARBOOK 2011

65 For more information on the ETF peer learning methodology see Nikolovska and Vos: ETF peer learning: from policy learning to policy change in partner countries, ETF

considerable capacity building and the financial means to participate fully.

In relation to education and training practice, peer discussions evolved around occupational and training needs as well as standards and curriculum content. The development of national qualifications frameworks is an area in which social partner involvement is particularly critical. This has been clearly demonstrated in the examples of the Turkish Vocational Qualification Authority and the Croatian Qualifications Framework. In Serbia employers are active in examination boards. In the countries where occupational standards development and qualification standardisation have been introduced through EU VET reform programmes there is social partner involvement, as this is a more or less standardised approach in EU programmes. With regard to continuing VET and in-company training, employers are reluctant to see staff they have trained being ‘poached’ by other enterprises. Trade union members need to see that standards can improve the employability, wages and mobility for their members. It will ultimately be necessary to develop a general culture of investment in transferable training.

In terms of school-enterprise relations, peers concluded that social partners are involved locally in schools, training centres and enterprises through both public and private initiatives and featuring direct cooperation between employers and trade unions. Cooperation between schools and enterprises concentrates mainly on practical training in companies, but typically this cooperation is more a result of personal networks than of a systematic policy. The peers agreed that providing incentives for building on these existing initiatives is a priority,

particularly if they can be ‘institutionalised’ by broadening the focus to other areas of cooperation and building up a participatory process that involves social partners and local VET policy-makers for ongoing consultation on occupational and training needs.

The overarching conclusion from the discussions among peers was that social partnership requires choices. Social partners do not have the human and financial resources to be engaged in all national lifelong learning policy

discussions, participate in shaping the national qualifications framework and be active in policy implementation in all municipalities and schools. Therefore it is necessary for each social partner organisation to set strategic priorities on where their limited resources can yield the greatest benefits. Reflecting on the insights and conclusions from the peer discussions, one may wonder why and how peers came to such a coherent and comprehensive overview of the challenges that social partners face in VET reform? Besides carefully selected topics for professional discussion, another very important element of the ETF peer learning methodology is the composition of the peer learning team.The core principle on which the team philosophy rests is that learning and knowledge creation is a social as well as an individual process. The selection of peers is therefore crucial. Both social partners and policy-makers need to have direct influence on or

responsibility for VET policy in their countries. The way in which peer learning teams interact and the relationships that emerge between their members help to create a platform that unleashes some specific life and

professional experiences. To create an effective learning environment, trust and a certain level of informality within the peer teams have to be built up. Their members have different experiences and different perspectives on the topics discussed. VET policy-makers expect that new policy reforms will be implemented in the way they have planned them, whereas social partners are inclined to take part in these reforms only where they match the interest of the groups they represent. These differences in perspective play an important role in the creation of a favourable environment for rich professional debate and generating workable new ideas and concepts that are relevant and potentially applicable in the national VET reform environment.

While peer learning can foster the development of new ideas and concepts for policy innovation within a group of peers, there is quite some distance between the conceptual world of ideas and their applicability in the VET policy context of each country. One persistent question is how new knowledge is acquired through ETF peer learning. Another one is how these ideas triggered by peer learning events influence the policy process in the countries? In the ETF peer learning methodology there are no built-in mechanisms to evaluate the impact of the peer learning exercise on actual policy processes. But we are not oblivious to the validity of these

questions. To catch a glimpse of an answer to them, we reflect on phenomena which in policy theory are labelled ‘policy diffusion’.

Policy theory identifies policy diffusion as a trend of successive or sequential adoption of a practice, policy or programme. While national decision making can be influenced by diffusion, policy innovations learnt and understood elsewhere are not in themselves a guarantee of their adoption in the home jurisdiction. The

determinants of policy design, adoption and

implementation include factors that are internal to the system – more so than external ones – such as the changing dynamics of political interests and the socio-historical make-up of policy (Stone, 2001). The message is clear: it is unrealistic to expect that new knowledge is easily transferable within the domain where social partners operate on a daily basis. The extent to which individual peer learning becomes collective or organisational learning, or how much policy will change as a result of peer learning, depends on different factors. Although peer learning can influence the actions of governments or donors, this is not enough to make a firm and positive evaluation of its impact. This is also one of the main weaknesses of peer learning as a tool: the national impact of peer learning may remain rather vague. Without a doubt, peer learning activities leave their greatest impact on those who are directly involved in them. Discussing and

comparing experiences from different countries is a powerful learning tool, and the cross-national exchange of experience can play an important role in further shaping individual countries’ VET polices.

PEER LEARNING: DEVELOPING