Higher Technical Education in England, United Kingdom

4. The quality and attractiveness of higher technical education

Abstract

This chapter describes the quality of and demand for higher technical education (HTE) programmes in England (United Kingdom) and selected OECD case study countries. It describes quality assurance mechanisms put in place in the HTE sector, as well as successful strategies to boost participation in this part of the education sector. In addition to describing the international case studies, the chapter also sheds light on these aspects of HTE in England and provides lessons learnt from the international experience that can provide valuable insights for the further development of the English HTE sector.

Policy insights to foster HTE quality and growth in England (United Kingdom)

Quality assurance is an integral part of an attractive and relevant HTE system. England has a well-developed quality assurance system for education and training, but the multitude of bodies involved in quality assurance of HTE makes it hard to navigate. England is unique to the countries in this report, in having two different quality assurance agencies responsible for the same set of HTE institutions.

Other elements contribute to the appeal of HTE, including costs and flexibility. England’s financial support mostly comes in the form of student loans, but almost half of HTE learners do not use loans to finance their education. Recognition of prior learning can make training more accessible and relevant for learners who have already acquired relevant skills through work experience and other activities, but the English HTE system does not have a structured approach to this.

Insights from policies and practices in other countries provide inspiration for fostering quality and growth in HTE:

• Sweden’s quality assurance agency has a sole focus on HTE. This is similar to Ontario (Canada), where the college quality assurance service assures the colleges, who for the large majority deliver only HTE. This focus means that attention is devoted to ensuring HTE of the highest quality.

• In Sweden the process of evaluating the adequacy of education for the economy’s needs is completed in its assessment of renewing funding for programmes (as described in Chapter 2). This ensure that consideration on the intrinsic quality of education is separate to the labour market relevance of education, again allowing for a more targeted focus in quality assurance.

• France has a set of financial support mechanisms for learners and employers engaged in the HTE apprenticeship route. Dedicated support is available for people with disabilities so that training is inclusive and supports individuals with greater needs to integrate into the labour market. Employers contribute to the funding of training through annual training and apprenticeship levies for businesses in France.

• France and Denmark make use of the recognition of prior learning, to shorten (and in some cases exempt completely) educational pathways. This is utilised as a tool to encourage demand, and lower costs both to students and educational providers and is offered via standardised, national pathways which make it easier for students to recognise and participate in.

Introduction

Higher technical education (HTE) must be supported and nurtured by an effective system of quality assurance. This enables all students to receive an education that meets the requirements of modern labour markets. It also ensures they are equipped with the skills needed to thrive in life and in their careers. Ensuring the quality of education is imperative in building trust, for both prospective students and prospective employers alike. Without that trust, students will not enrol and businesses will not employ. Quality assurance is also imperative to ensure that the public and private money spent on education is done so effectively, in a way that raises productivity and contributes to better outcomes.

However, quality assurance is by no means the only factor that encourages participation in HTE. Countries have various policy levers at their disposal that can encourage participation in education. Entry criteria for programmes can be permissive or can be restrictive. Funding for education can be generous or it be can scant. Timetables can be flexible or they can be rigid. There are nuances within all of this. Countries may impose policies that have countervailing impacts on the attractiveness of education and the interplay between all of these policies will determine attractiveness at a system level. Individual impacts may be small or large, and one policy may play an offsetting role against one other policy but not others. All of these different factors can conspire into an educational offering that is at once attractive to individuals, or can limit their motivations for participation.

The chapter turns now to discuss how the quality assurance systems in Canada (Ontario), England, France and Sweden are organised, and how they attempt to influence the delivery and attractiveness of education. It then proceeds to look at some wider policies and strategies designed to increase participation in countries- with a particular focus on Denmark and France- to provide some inspiration for England as it too seeks to expand the attractiveness of its HTE system.

Quality assurance: What quality assurance mechanisms are in place in higher technical education?

This section reviews the quality assurance mechanisms in place in England and sets these against examples from Canada (Ontario), France and Sweden. It describes some of the broad principles of the respective systems in countries and outlines how these systems attempt to ensure their students can access high quality education that is well-focussed to labour market demands.

Quality assurance in education is a complex combination of procedures, and countries take a range of approaches to its implementation. Sitting underneath all of this, proper data infrastructure, information accessibility and outcome tracking are essential to ensure that quality assurance helps to guide learners, educators and employers in a way that improves skills acquisition and supports the economy (OECD, 2024[1]). Notwithstanding the particular approach taken, it is imperative countries have clear educational outcomes defined, so that their quality assurance systems can support their delivery.

Among the countries covered in this report, England is unique is having two quality assurance bodies that are responsible for reviewing the same institutions (Table 4.1). Denmark, France, Ontario and Sweden all have one body responsible for quality assurance of their training institutions. Austria has multiple bodies involved in the quality assurance, but they perform different functions as part of the broader quality system. The main authority for undertaking school evaluation is the Ministry of Education, Science and Research. It works with several partners, including regional authorities and external bodies that come under its jurisdiction including the Federal Institute for Quality Assurance in the Austrian School System (IQS), and Reference Centre for Quality in General and Vocational Education (RQB). Austria is unique among the selected countries in having the ministry responsible for education playing also a big role in schools’ quality assurance. Even in England, where Ofsted is a non-ministerial government department, there is a separation between the Ministry of Education, who has policy responsibility for education, and the separate quality assurance functions. On the other hand, Ontario divests responsibility for quality assurance entirely to its HTE providers, the public colleges, who must then ensure they have a suitable QA system. This is discharged via their ownership of the Ontario College Quality Assurance Service.

Table 4.1. England is unique in having multiple quality assurance bodies

	Quality Assurance body	Monitoring process	Impact of Poor Quality results
England	Office for Students (OfS)	Risk indicators and institutional reviews	OfS – fines, suspension and de-registration
	Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted)	Institutional reviews (frequency is risk-based)	Ofsted- improvement plans, special measures and closure
	Institute For Apprenticeships And Technical Education (IfATE)	Initial programme approval for higher technical qualifications (HTQ)	n/a
	Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation (Ofqual)	Approves qualifications and awarding bodies, regulates exams and assessments	Removal from register of awarding bodes
Sweden	National Agency for Higher Vocational Education (Myndigheten för yrkeshögskolan, MYH)	Supervision and quality reviews at programme level	For supervision sanctions can be applied (e.g. not paying state grant). For quality reviews, follow-up should be done in 1‑2 years after review (not specific to poor performance)
Denmark	Danish Accreditation Institute	Institutional accreditation	The education institution cannot establish new programmes or local provisions of programmes. Existing programmes must be accredited in accordance with a schedule.
Canada (Ontario)	Ontario College Quality Assurance Service	Institutional and programme reviews	None specified. 24 months follow-up for all colleges
France	France Compétences Ministry of Education (school-based learning)	Certification QUALIOPI School inspections	Accreditation lasts for 3 years and then needs to be re-applied for
Austria	Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research (BMBWF), Federal Institute for Quality Assurance in the Austrian School System (IQS), Reference Center for Quality in General and Vocational Education (RQB)	Quality Management System (QMS)	The school development plan, based on the internal school quality assessment, is designed for a three-year period (i.e. school years 2022/23 to 2024/25).

An array of agencies manage quality in the diffuse system of provision in England

In England quality assurance is achieved through a system of principles-based regulation, directed and discharged via several government agencies1. The quality regime functions mainly according to the provider type, though providers may be under the jurisdiction of two quality agencies if they offer multiple different provision:

• Office for Students (OfS)- the independent regulator for higher education in England is a non-departmental public body. It controls both the registration of approved providers and ongoing quality monitoring.

• Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted): A non-ministerial government department with responsibility for inspection and quality assurance of approved schools and colleges. This includes further education (FE) providers and higher education institutions that offer higher-level apprenticeships.

• Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE): An employer-led non-departmental public body which manages the approvals of the new higher technical qualifications (HTQs). The functions of this body will shortly be assumed by the new Skills England body, which has been announced and will assume responsibilities over the course of 2024 and 2025 (DfE, 2024[2]).

• The Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation (Ofqual): A non-ministerial government department with responsibility for regulating qualifications, examinations and assessments in England (except for higher education) and regulating awarding bodies (such as Pearson) for higher education.

England operates a system which is fairly unique in that an institution may be subject to jurisdiction from two quality assurance agencies if it has education that crosses jurisdictional lines. Further education colleges are traditionally quality assured by Ofsted, however for a college which offers HTE, it will also come under the purview of the OfS, as a provider of higher education regulated by the OfS. Similarly (although it is not the focus of this report) a higher education institution comes under Ofsted’s purview if it offers apprenticeships.

The impression is of a system of quality assurance for England that is well structured, detailed and uses risk assessment to minimises administrative burden. However, in some senses it is also duplicative, as providers can be subject to two different quality assurance bodies and the prevalence of multiple different co‑ordinating bodies adds complexity to the institutional setting.

The report now turns to look in more detail at the processes and responsibilities of the different actors in England, before turning to look at how these practice work in Canada (Ontario), France and Sweden.

In England the OfS regulates institutions that have the legal basis to offer different courses and has broad responsibility for student satisfaction

The OfS, an independent public body established in 2018, formally assumed responsibilities as the official designated quality body for higher education in 2023. All of the relevant duties that the OfS imposes upon itself, as a result of the Higher Education Research Act (HERA), are laid out in a regulatory framework document that details the manner in which OfS will perform its regulatory duties, to provide information to students, education providers and employers and social partners (OfS, 2022[3]).

The OfS has two primary functions with regards to quality assurance. First, it controls the register of approved higher education providers. This register confers the ability for an education provider to offer government regulated higher education, and so confers access to government funding for these institutions (and by extension their students). Second, it monitors quality of its registered providers through a system of risk-based monitoring and interventions.

This is important in the context of HTE, as it regulates who may or may not offer a foundation degree, one of the key awards in English HTE. The HERA lays down a number of regulations for the OfS in its role in higher education and how it engages with external bodies to conduct its work. Legislation provides OfS with four primary regulatory objectives which relate to ensuring that all students, regardless of background, can access a high quality, cost effective and labour market relevant education.

The OfS also has a duty to collect, collate and share information on student statistics for its registered providers, so that aggregate information is available to the public on the overall numbers of students, their completions and fields of study.

The OfS register controls higher education institutions’ access to government funding

One of the key aspects for OfS is to facilitate registration (initial and ongoing) of approved higher education providers. It maintains a list of these approved providers, such that institutions registered with the OfS are eligible to deliver government regulated courses and to benefit from the funding associated with them. Inherent within this approvals process is the ability of providers to demonstrate how they deliver education subject to the quality and standards required by the OfS (Table 4.2). Within these broad areas, the OfS outlines several sub-indicators and criteria which govern whether or not a provider meets the expected criteria for this area.

Table 4.2. The registration of higher education providers by OfS rests on meeting conditions across six areas

Condition	Description
Access and participation for students from all backgrounds	Institution has an access and participation plan approved by the Office for Students (OfS), and a statement which is updated annually
Quality, reliable standards and positive outcomes for all students	Eight conditions covering a supported, high quality and well assessed education, which delivers positive outcomes and is sector relevant
Protecting the interests of all students	Institutions must have in place a well-publicised student complaints system, alongside an adequate student protection plan and compliance with Student Protection Directions from OfS
Financial sustainability	An institution must be financially viable and sustainable and have adequate resources to deliver education as advertised
Good governance	An institiution has good governance procedures and effective management, which interact well with OfS procedures and requirements
Information for students	Complies with the Higher Education Research Act (HERA) transparency requirements, publishes student transfer policies and complies with OfS data requirements
Accountability for fees and funding	Fees that don’t exceed government cap, complies with conditions attached to financial support received from the OfS and UK Research and Innovation

Source: OfS (2024[4]), How we regulate quality and standards, www.officeforstudents.org.uk/for-providers/quality-and-standards/how-we-regulate-quality-and-standards/.

Alongside its power to register institutions, the OfS confers different levels of degree-awarding powers to them. This takes the form of three levels of authorisation- research degree (i.e. PhD), taught degree (including Bachelor’s and Master’s) and foundation degree. This is hierarchical such that an institution with research degree status can award taught and foundation degrees, but an institution with foundation degree awarding powers could not award research or taught degrees.

The practical implications of this for HTE are such that colleges can seek to gain accreditation to offer foundation degrees themselves or can work as an approved partner to deliver courses that are approved by their partner who has research- or taught-degree awarding powers.

The OfS implements a risk-based approach to ongoing quality assurance

The OfS has implemented a system of risk-based monitoring that is designed to ensure proportionality and minimise the burden on institutions. This is done so that focus can be paid to those providers most in need of improvement. Alongside its focus on provider quality, it has a specific mandate to review sector-level regulation. This higher-level regulation is designed to allow “the higher education sector to flourish, and… [create] the space for innovation” (OfS, 2022, p. 24[3]).

Monitoring is formulated around a flexible system which utilises a suite of “lead indicators” to guide performance assessment, supplemented with a process for flagging contraventions by providers (who must communicate “reportable events”) for students and stakeholders with complaints and whistleblowing. If concerns are raised a series of dialogue and investigation can lead to enhanced monitoring, monetary sanctions, and suspension or de-registration.

The lead indicators used by the OfS to guide their quality review cover a range of educational outcomes, from the application process to completion rates and graduate outcomes. Trends are analysed to look at changes which may indicate changes to performance. Socio-economic and geographic characteristics are used to determine whether access and outcomes are fair across different cohorts of individuals (OfS, 2022[5]). The OfS’ Teaching Excellence Framework also provides information that is used to monitor performance in the delivery of education, that can be used to provide information on ongoing quality (see Box 4.1 for more details).

Alongside these lead indicators, the OfS conducts investigations on a sample of institutions to provide assurance on the effectiveness of its ongoing monitoring approach. This provides incentives for institutions to hold themselves accountable, and to give the OfS insight on sectoral practices. The OfS may also conduct efficiency studies of a provider to investigate whether that provider is providing value for money to both students and taxpayers.

Box 4.1. The OfS Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) encourages institutional enhancement

The OfS publishes a list of ratings for its registered institutions such that it displays how they achieve excellence over and above the minimum standards for registration. This information is summarised in detailed TEF dashboards.

The TEF was revised in 2023, after a government response to a consultation on how monitoring of institutional quality should encourage educational development and excellence (DfE, 2021[6]). The ability to confer ratings to providers is laid down to the OfS by the HERA in 2017, and previous to this the Higher Education Funding Council for England oversaw assessment. In 2018 OfS assumed control and began a process of review, to ensure the TEF was fit-for-purpose. There were three assessments under the old TEF in the years 2017-2019 before changes were made to review its structure and delivery. This resulted in the newly formulated TEF being delivered in 2023, after a series of subject-level pilots.

Participation in the TEF is mandatory for those providers with more than 5 000 undergraduate students and voluntary otherwise. Assessments are the result of student submissions and a TEF panel to review the evidence.

Ratings are from gold through to “requires improvements”

Rating can go through gold, silver and bronze, to ”requires improvement”. In 2023, 22% of institutions secured a gold overall rating (51 institutions), 55% silver, 21% bronze, with 1% still pending. This represents a shifting down from the previous TEF ratings, where 31% of institutions were awarded gold and only 14% bronze. A TEF panel comprising of a mixture of academic and student members, decides on the overall award given to each institution. On a strategic level, a TEF metrics peer review group has been established, which is designed to provide advice on the overall metrics employed within the TEF framework.

There is some financial incentive for institutions to participate in the TEF process, as those that do not participate are only able to charge reduced fees for their tuition. However, the degree of bite in this measure is likely to be low, as the difference to the maximum fee amount chargeable is less than 3%.

Ofsted has responsibility for assuring further education colleges and individual providers

Ofsted has a broad remit of quality assurance responsibilities, that includes primary, secondary and post-secondary educational institutions. For HTE, this includes further education colleges, sixth-form colleges, independent specialist colleges, local authority providers, independent learning providers (including those providing apprenticeships) and higher education institutions that are providing further education. Although Ofsted discharges its assurance responsibilities via the use of institutional inspections, these inspections do not include inspection of any classroom-based education at English qualification levels 4 and above (which covers the domain of HTE). OfS has separate responsibility for the quality assurance of this education.

For adult learning, Ofsted inspectors will specifically address how well the curriculum, including the wider curriculum, for each strand of a provider’s adult learning programme has a clearly defined purpose that is relevant to the education and training needs and interests of learners, and to local employment opportunities. It assesses how effectively staff work with learners, employers and other partners- such as Jobcentre Plus- to ensure that teaching, learning and assessment enable learners to develop personal, social and employability skills. It also assesses how well providers record and recognise learners’ progress and achievements to inform teaching and support programmes (Ofsted, 2022[7]).

Inspectors need to make an assessment on whether a further education provider contributes to skills needs of employers and the local, regional and national economy

Colleges need to demonstrate to inspectors that programmes that they teach, the content and planning of that curriculum, and their engagement and collaboration with employers and stakeholders reflect the needs of the local, regional and national contexts. The curriculum intent should take into account the needs of learners, employers and the local, regional and national economy. Institutions will be demarcated as having a limited, reasonable or strong contribution in this regard.

A limited contribution is assessed if an institution’s leadership fails to meet one or more of the following criteria: i) to engage effectively with employers and other relevant stakeholders in the design of curriculum, ii) engage employers and stakeholders to understand skills needs of the local, regional and national economy, iii) is sufficiently clear on how they are contributing to skills needs, iv) ensures curriculum is planned and taught effectively. A strong demonstration is awarded if they meet all of the four criteria very effectively.

To make their assessment, inspectors draw on meetings with the institution’s management, discussions with stakeholders of that institution around skills needs, information on institutions local skills improvement plans (or similar plans) and information on skills needs from published sources (such as Local Enterprise Partnership or Skills Advisory Panel plans).

Ofqual regulates awarding bodies that provide HTE qualifications

Ofqual has jurisdiction regulating secondary, upper-secondary, vocational and technical qualifications and apprenticeship end-point assessments. For HTE, regulation is performed via Ofqual designation of “awarding body” status to enterprises. An awarding body can then offer courses with access to government funding. Qualifications of awarding bodies are placed on the register of regulated qualifications. However, for students to access government-backed tuition loan, a providing institution must also be registered with the OfS, so there is a link to OfS regulation even for those courses regulated by Ofqual.

To begin a process of registration, an institution must demonstrate that it meets the required criteria for recognition. These four criteria determine whether or not the entity sufficiently meets the expected structural requirements for an organisation seeking to offer regulated qualifications. These cover general legal issues on governance and on whether or not the leadership have the required integrity and expertise to design and deliver regulated qualifications. Then resources, processes and finances are checked and general competences on the ability of staff to offer well-structured and legally compliant qualifications. Annual statements of compliance are needed to retain ongoing registration, and data requests and audits can be made to review quality. In the HTE space, one of the main awarding bodies is Pearson, which owns all of the Higher National Certificates (HNC) and Diplomas (HND) delivered in England.

IfATE is responsible for approval and registration of the new HTQs

After all of the quality proceedings that have occurred in approving courses and providers of any of the underlying HTE courses, any of these programmes that wish to be registered as Higher Technical Qualifications (HTQ) must also be approved by IfATE (see Chapter 2 for more detail). In particular this ensures that the skills, knowledge and behaviours taught in a qualification align to approved occupational standards, and that employer engagement meets expected standards.

The QAA plays a voluntary supporting role and produces strategic guidelines on educational content and conducts quality assessment of HEIs

The QAA has an important ancillary role to support quality in higher education in England, via the voluntary adherence of institutional members to its quality code. The QAA was formerly responsible for the quality assurance of registered higher education institutions in England but relinquished this role in 2023. However, the QAA retains an important function to support quality in England, via the voluntary membership of higher education institutions, of which over 98% are members (QAA, 2024[8]).

The QAA publishes the United Kingdom Quality Code for Higher Education. This code sets out fundamental principles for higher education quality across the United Kingdom. These include emphasising the role of providers in assuring the quality they offer to students, in supporting student engagement, and ensuring external referencing on award integrity and quality.

The QAA publishes 12 Advice and Guidance themes and a number of other resources that support the mandatory part of the Quality Code. Characteristics statements sit alongside these resources to help providers develop courses and refine curricula but are not directly part of the regulated requirements for higher education providers in the UK. Characteristics Statements are closely linked to The Frameworks for Higher Education Qualifications of UK Degree-Awarding Bodies (the Qualifications Frameworks). They complement and contextualise the information provided within the Qualifications Frameworks, providing more detail about the distinctive features of qualifications at particular levels of the frameworks and/or of qualifications at any level, which are awarded in a particular way (QAA, 2020[9]).

In Sweden the agency for higher vocational education (MYH) is tasked with reviewing the quality of education within HTE

Sweden has a focussed and streamlined set-up for quality assurance and enhancement of its higher vocational education (HVE) programmes (HTE in Sweden), with its agency for higher vocational education (MYH) responsible for these areas. This contrasts to England where multiple bodies are involved in conducting quality checks. MYH aims to use evaluation to shape and enhance the quality of individual educational programmes, in alignment with the objectives outlined in legislation.

To ensure that the focus is on improving education, as well as adhering to minimum standards, separate processes are followed. While supervisions ensure compliance with legal standards, quality reviews assess the overall quality of the education provided, going beyond legal mandates to evaluate factors such as effectiveness, innovation and student outcomes. These measures take place at programme level.

The supervision by the MYH can result in economic sanctions to the training provider

MYH has the supervisory responsibility for HVE programmes and ensures that the training programmes comply with the legal standards set forth in laws and regulations. The supervision focuses on three main areas:

1. The content and implementation of the training programme.

2. Management and development.

3. Students’ legal security.

The supervision process includes two main phases: initial supervision and in-depth supervision. Initial supervision reviews the prerequisites necessary for conducting training, ensuring that the provider has the required organisational setup in place. This is conducted for every new programme. This review occurs a few weeks after training commencement and usually take place over the phone but may also take place via e-mail. In-depth supervision, conducted midway or towards the end of the education period, involves two investigators visiting the training provider for a day to assess one or more training programmes. During the in-depth supervision, various aspects of the training are monitored, including workplace-based components, ensuring compliance with regulations and guaranteeing suitable conditions for the management team. This is to ensure ongoing compliance with legal standards and assesses the same areas as the initial supervision.

After completing the supervision, the education provider receives a decision from the MYH. If deficiencies are found, the decision specifies areas of non-compliance with regulations and outlines required corrective measures; failure to address deficiencies may result in sanctions, such as withholding state grants.

Sweden’s system of time-limited approval for programmes, which require re-approval subject to labour market demand, means that programmes can be re-reviewed in new project windows.

HVE programmes are randomly selected for in-depth review and rated on a four-point quality scale

Every year the MYH selects ongoing training courses to conduct in-depth quality reviews on. The training programmes must have been in place in HVE for several training rounds to qualify for selection. The selected training programmes must not also have undergone a quality assessment previously.

There are a number of steps for an in-depth quality review. The MYH first notifies a provider of its intention to conduct a review. Required documents from the provider are outlined and MYH gathers further information from the provider (for example from course plans and management minutes) and its own systems. An on-site visit is conducted with interviews for teaching staff, students and administrative staff. A report is then drafted with an overall assessment made.

The quality reviews rates a HVE programme on a four point scale ranging from very high quality to poor quality:

• Very high quality - The training fully meets the predefined quality criteria and is acknowledged as exceptionally high-quality. Furthermore, these courses serve as outstanding examples of HVE.

• High quality - The training satisfies the predefined quality criteria and is recognised for its high quality.

• Not high enough quality - The training falls short of the predefined quality criteria and is deemed to be of insufficient quality. Further development of the education is necessary to achieve higher quality standards. The MYH believes that implementing the required measures by the training provider can be done within a reasonable timeframe.

• Lack of quality - The training falls short of the predefined quality criteria and is deemed to be of poor quality. Further development of the education is necessary to achieve higher quality standards. The MYH is uncertain about the feasibility of implementing the required measures within a reasonable timeframe.

Each review concludes with a decision that may include recommendations or specific improvement requirements. The decisions and reports from the in-depth quality reviews are publicly available on the MYH website. The publication makes it possible for prospective students to consider the results of HVE provider and programmes. Audit results are compiled annually in a report that gives a general picture of the success factors and challenges in HVE Sweden.

A follow-up quality review usually takes place one or two years after the in-depth quality review. The MYH focuses on the improvement areas that were identified in the in-depth quality review. The purpose is to follow up on how the organiser has worked to improve the education provision in these areas. The process of a follow-up review is similar to a quality review but focuses on the improvements the provider has done to address previously highlighted areas for improvement. It includes a questionnaire that covers the efforts of the provider to address the areas for improvement. An overall assessment is made on the institution’s efforts to enhance the quality of education.

Quality reviews by the MYH covers four quality areas and are designed to offer strategic advice to enhance education quality

In-depth quality reviews try to drive up the quality of HVE in Sweden. The purpose of the quality review is to contribute to strengthening the quality of education within HTE programmes based on the objectives outlined in the regulations. The quality reviews primarily emphasise a positive approach and concentrate on proactive measures to further enhance educational standards. The goal is that training providers, together with the management team, reflect and develop on optimal work routines for ensuring that the work methods effectively contribute to achieving the objectives of the training.

The MYH conducts quality reviews of HVE programmes by utilising specific quality criteria to facilitate ongoing development and enhancement of course quality. The MYH has established quality criteria that collectively define what constitutes a high-quality education. The quality criteria for HTE are based on the goals and objectives outlined in regulations, preparatory work, and in other provisions that apply to this form of education. The four quality criteria are grouped into sections on management; learning processes; learning on the job (LIA); and quality and value-based work. Within these quality areas, there are a total of twelve quality criteria that together cover what is considered a high-quality education provision in HVE (MYH, 2019[10]). Relative to England, more of a focus in made on ensuring that work-based learning is provided directly by programmes, so the link made to employment is immediately more practical. Similarly, there is less of a direct focus on how provision is mapped to local skills needs, as this assessment is made as part of the broader work on which programmes to fund. This helps to ensure that a relative focus is given on assuring course quality itself, rather than how education maps to skills needs.

Management teams should have a strong role to guide education quality

This “management” section evaluates whether the education programme has a well-functioning management team that contributes to the purpose of the training. This team should possess a strong understanding of the competency requirements within the relevant professional field and should work effectively to maintain high levels of professional relevance throughout the programme. The management team must be familiar with the systematic quality work, participate in its development and be responsible for its implementation.

This review area is composed of four quality criteria:

• The members of the management group have good knowledge of the competence needs that exist in the professional area.

• The management team ensures a strong connection to the world of work throughout the education.

• The management team works efficiently and takes responsibility for the development of the education.

• The management team is responsible for systematic quality work being carried out.

Learning processes should facilitate high quality delivery of education

This “learning processes” section evaluates whether the learning process contributes to the purpose of the training. The practical and pedagogical conditions must be provided so that the students have the right learning environment to achieve the goals of the education. It is also required that the people employed in the training for teaching or supervision have the right set of skills. This review area is composed of three quality criteria:

• The organisation and resources of the education provides students the right conditions to reach the goals of the education.

• The pedagogy of the education provides students the right conditions to reach the goals of the education.

• The people employed in the training for teaching or supervision have the right set of skills.

Work placements (LIA) should provide ample practical training opportunities to learners

The section on work placements evaluates whether the programme has a well-functioning LIA that contributes to the purpose of the education. LIA must be an integrated part of the training, based on good co‑operation between the training organiser and the employer providing the work placement. LIA supervisors should also have the right set of skills. This review area is composed of three quality criteria:

• The training provider maintains strong collaboration with employer providing the work placement.

• LIA is a well-functioning part of the education.

• The people hired as LIA supervisors have the right skills.

Quality assurance needs to be firmly embedded and utilised in training

This section reviews whether the programme has a well-functioning quality assurance system in place that contributes to that purpose of the education. The quality assurance system must be clearly formulated and transparent. It covers the entirety of the training programme, including planning, implementation, evaluation and improvement phases of the training.

In addition, this quality area includes the ethical practices implemented by the training provider on diversity, equal treatment as well as the education's role in challenging traditional gender norms in educational and professional pathways. Ethical practices must be integrated in all parts of the education. This review area has two quality criteria:

• A well-functioning system for quality assurance.

• Ethical practices on diversity, equal treatment and gender equality.

In Ontario a college-owned quality assurance agency externally validates qualifications

Ontario operates a quality assurance system that is similarly focused on HTE, with the Ontario College Quality Assurance Service (OCQAS) focused solely on quality in post-secondary college education. The relative focus on colleges at offering HTE means that the mainstay of the work of OCQAS is assuring HTE. Ontario’s legislation on quality assurance is practically enacted via the use of guidance laid out in binding policy directives from ministers. The binding policy directive framework for programmes of instruction stipulates that colleges establish a “system-wide credentials validation service that will provide reasonable assurance that all post- secondary programmes of instruction…[that] conform to the Credentials Framework and are consistent with accepted college system nomenclature/programme titling principles” (MTCU, 2009[11]).

The OCQAS is wholly independent from government and is established and owned by the 24 public colleges in Ontario. Ontario government legislation gave the public colleges the responsibility for autonomous programme approval and development, with the requirement that quality assurance processes be put in place to ensure that they consistently meet quality standards (aligned to the requirements of the Ontario Qualification Framework, OQF). This requirement is fulfilled by OCQAS.

To ensure independence from its college owners, members of the management board are drawn from business and industry, higher education facilities in other jurisdictions, student organisations, alongside some internal membership from the college system in Ontario. External members must not be affiliated with any of the 24 public colleges in any way. The blend of “internal” and “external” membership is designed to ensure it operates without undue interests to any particular college, and to be in-keeping with international best practices for quality assurance agencies.

The OCQAS discharges its responsibilities via two separate functions. Their College Quality Assurance Audit Process (CQAAP) conducts institutional reviews, which are designed to evaluate the fitness of the colleges themselves to deliver education. The Credential Validation Service (CVS) performs programme validation to ensure any new programmes delivered by colleges meet the specific learning outcomes expected by the OQF.

Finally, OCQAS must liaise with other quality assurance agencies (notably the Postsecondary Education Quality Assessment Board) to compare processes and align approaches as appropriate. It also looks to international best practice to ensure that its approach to regulating the colleges reflects international best practice (see Box 4.2).

Box 4.2. A global approach to quality standards

The Ontario College Quality Assurance Service (OCQAS) looks outwards to improve quality

OCQAS is a member of the International Network of Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE). As part of this membership INQAAHE’s review recommended more international peer learning for OCQAS. The result of which was the introduction of a global QA collaboration and engagement plan.

This engagement plan has five objectives; 1) to increase global collaboration, 2) to develop working relationships with quality assurance agencies of countries in which the public colleges in Ontario have facilities, 3) to document best practices of international QA agencies, 4) to document Student Voice best practices and 5) to inform communication and branding strategies.

A number of initiatives are set out across these objectives to lay out activities to achieve them, alongside named staff that are responsible for their completion.

Source: OCQAS (2022[12]), OCQAS Global QA Collaboration and Engagement Plan, www.ocqas.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/OCQAS-Global-QA-Collaboration-and-Engament-Plan-2022-2023_.pdf.

The institutional review emphasises transparency and evaluates institutional maturity

OCQAS’ institutional review process is guided by an outcomes-based principle, so that the outcomes of education are used to guide quality reviews. This means that less focus is given on individual procedures, rather, emphasis is placed on ensuring a college’s system delivers good outcomes for students. The reviews analyse performance across six broad themes;

• Quality Management System – colleges governing boards should have a system to ensure relevancy and currency of programmes (to current industry standards) with appropriate data collection and analysis. There should be action plans and recommendations.

• Learning Outcomes – should be at the centre of programme development and flow from agreed Programme Vocational Learning Outcomes (VLOs) with mechanisms (including recognition of prior learning) that facilitate achievement of these outcomes.

• Conformity – with government regulations (particularly the CVS – see below).

• Programme Delivery and Student Assessment – this includes regular experimentation and sharing of new strategies and fair and equitable evaluation of students.

• Academic Quality – policies should exist and be publicised that monitor and influence academic quality. This should be across areas on admission; progression; prior learning/transfer credit recognition; accommodation; assessment; certification.

• Resources – colleges should have capable and well-supported academic staff. This includes appropriate selection/hiring processes, proper orientation and onboarding of staff and continuous support for professional development.

In 2003, OCQAS adopted its current guiding principles for quality assurance and improvement. These principles ensure that any developed model aligns with international best practices, is effective, efficient, and cyclical, and gives colleges appropriate notice before reviews. The audit process uses an objective peer review panel to evaluate educational quality assurance mechanisms to ensure minimum standards are met. It identifies strengths and weaknesses, recommends improvements, and includes college responses in final reports. It provides categories of approval, an appeals system, and consistency in decisions. Additionally, audit must be sustainable and affordable for the entire system and individual colleges (OCQAS, 2023[13]).

Colleges are required to undergo a quality assurance audit every five (transitioning to every six) years (OCQAS, 2023[13]). The audit year is determined by a set audit schedule. This audit schedule runs for ten years, the current schedule running from 2016 to 2025. Colleges complete a 24-month follow-up report that documents progress against any areas for improvement.

The review process for institutions confers a maturity rating to an institution, which should be applied per the standards laid out by OCQAS. The policy guidelines state that processes should be clearly stated, standards and requirements be aligned to international best practices, and that decisions be transparently made. The objective of maturity ratings within this framework is to ensure that colleges have a framework for quality improvement. There are three maturity ratings available for colleges, which are made publicly available. A mature effort is given when the college meets or exceeds the expectations in the quality standards. An organised effort is given when they are met in part and a formal effort given when the expectations are not met. Institutions can appeal their rating and can request a rating change when they submit an 18-month follow-up report in which a detailed narrative must be supplied by colleges which explains progress made against areas of concern.

OCQAS uses a system of internal and external review, to ensure its own processes meet expected international standards. Indeed, it has been subject to external reviews in 2006, 2010, 2011 and 2021, the latter two as part of its membership to the International Network of Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education.

Programmes reviews ensure quality of diploma courses that are offered

The Credential Validation Service (CVS) is implemented by OCQAS to provide a system-wide oversight for programme validation for diplomas (alongside the other regulated courses provided by colleges). This approval is required before a college can start to teach a new programme. The approval is based on the requirements laid out in the binding policy directive on programme instructions (MTCU, 2009[11]). The approval reviews each of the following areas in a programme:

• vocational outcomes and associated complexity of knowledge required

• essential employability skills

• general education requirements

• typical duration for completion

• admission requirements

• name of credential

• programme title as required by “CVS Titling Protocols”.

In addition to this, information is also gathered on labour market demand, formal acceptance by regulatory authorities (where relevant), and pathways to other credentials and partnerships with other institutions. OCQAS has the responsibility to liaise directly with Ontario’s Ministry of Colleges and Universities (MCTU) regarding programme validation requirements. OCQAS maintains a set of programme guidelines and titling protocols that colleges can refer to in their implementation of education. This is subject to yearly review by college stakeholders, who are responsible for programme validation submissions. Any changes are approved by the OCQAS executive director. Updated guidelines are published annually in August and are in effect for any new requests from 1st September each year.

As part of the procedures, OCQAS provides a review of the draft programme submission in advance of formal submission, to work with colleges to ensure compliance with standards. A minimum of two individuals must review submissions, to ensure standardisation and consistency in decision-making. If a programme is in contravention of standards, guidance is provided to help colleges to align the programme to criteria. If the decision is appealed, an internal panel consisting of three OCQAS board members will consider the appeal. This decision is final.

The OCQAS has a number of obligations as part of its mandate co‑ordinating, communicating and facilitating dialogue between colleges and provincial government in the delivery of statutory objectives. It liaises with the MCTU to interpret the binding policy directive on programmes of instruction and is responsible for facilitating discussion when any general issues arise. It must have sufficient funding to convene this liaison. It communicates requirements of the credentials framework to colleges and provides guidance on how to interpret them. In addition to its annual standards update, it must also communicate information to the colleges via newsletters. It must meet regularly with college stakeholders to provide a forum for discussion on CVS requirements, processes and issues. It must bring substantive issues to MCTU’s attention, on behalf of the colleges. It must also provide training to college staff who are responsible for programme and title validation submissions about these two areas.

An annual summary of trends in programme validations must be produced and disseminated to stakeholders. Statistics on programme and title validation must also be presented annually to the OCQAS management board. A formal review of the review process should occur a minimum of every five years, produced by an external individuals.

France Compétences evaluates and regulates the quality system in vocational training and apprenticeships

The mission of France Compétences is to ensure the financing, regulation and improvement of the vocational training and apprenticeship system. France Compétences operates as a national public institution with administrative authority. Its strategic directions are shaped by a quadripartite governance structure, consisting of representatives from the State, regional authorities, trade unions representing both employees and employers at national and inter-professional levels, as well as distinguished individuals with relevant expertise.

As the designated quality authority, it evaluates and regulates the quality system. France Compétences also serves as the national authority on quality matters within the European Union and is integral to the European reference framework for quality assurance in education and training.

A new quality certification system, QUALIOPI, was introduced to increase standardisation

In 2018, new legislation established a new mandatory certification requirement for training providers seeking to access public and pooled funds2 for professional training (the “Qualiopi” certification) (République Française, 2018[14]). The reform built upon previous reforms, which in 2013 had attempted to bring more standardisation in training practices by establishing quality criteria (République Française, 2014[15]).

The new certification requirements target training providers seeking funds from various sources, including skills operators, regional inter-professional joint commissions, national funding schemes, regional authorities, France Travail (the French public employment service), and the association for the management of the fund for the integration of disabled people (AGEFIPH). The requirement applies to all training organisations offering apprenticeships, continuing education, validation of prior learning (VAE) and/or skills assessments. In the context of HTE, apprenticeship training centres (CPAs) that provide BTS apprenticeship training and that receive public funds are required to obtain the Qualiopi certification.

The Qualiopi certification, registered with the National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI), certifies the quality of processes implemented by training providers in France. Official certifying bodies, which are accredited to provide Qualiopi certifications, are entrusted with conducting audits and granting the necessary certification to training providers. This means the certification process is somewhat de-centralised and undertaken at a practical level by the official certification bodies. The certification process includes audits of quality indicators through on-site visits, interviews, verification of documentation and, where applicable, the auditor’s observations.

Since the implementation of the reform, there has been a report which analyses its effect and provides some areas for further improvements (IGAS/IGÉSR, 2023[16]). The report notes that Qualiopi has helped to bring structure and clarity to processes in training organisations, has a high adoption rate (over 99% of providers) and incorporates provider feedback. However, it has also increased administrative and financial burden on providers, focuses on methods rather than actual pedagogical practices and has limited supervision. The report also notes that it has not been possible to determine the actual impact of the new standards on training quality.

There is a general approach to incremental improvement and flexibility in the Qualiopi framework, whereupon its “Référentiel National Qualité”, the guidance handbook for providers, is constantly updated to reflect new guidelines and process (as of January 2024, it was on its 9th edition) (DGEFP, 2024[17]).

The Qualiopi mark introduces an alternative system for quality accreditation

The French Accreditation Committee (COFRAC) controls the accreditation of “certifying bodies”, institutions which have the ability to provide assurance on training providers compliance with the national quality standards. The Ministry of Labour then publishes a list of certifying bodies accredited or authorised by COFRAC. Skills development training providers can choose freely which certification body to use. As of 2024, there were 37 approved certification bodies.

However, the introduction of the Qualiopi standards introduced the possibility for France Compétences to approve its own certification bodies, capable of issuing Qualiopi certification. This recognition lasts three years in accordance with the provisions of article R. 6316-4 of the labour code (République Française, 2922[18]). Article 6316-4 dictates that higher education providers pass certification obligations if they have been positively accredited by the established evaluation procedures for providers. It also requires an annual conference including France Compétences and the High Council for the Evaluation of Research and Higher Education (“le Haut Conseil de l'évaluation de la recherche et de l'enseignement supérieur”), to aid with ensuring consistency in the criteria for evaluating training quality. A list of certification bodies is available via the Ministry of Labour’s website, or on the France Compétences website. These certification bodies can issue Qualiopi certification label as part of their own quality approach.

France has introduced more flexibility into its accreditation procedures and enabled two separate pathways by which to accredit their certifying bodies. This offers some insight for England, as it embeds its new Skills England body, and continues the implementation of its Higher Technical Qualifications (HTQs). This provides England with an opportunity to consider how best the accreditation of HTQ providers functions within these new processes.

The Qualiopi benchmark is composed around 7 criteria and 32 indicators

The national quality framework refers to a quality certification framework for providers of actions contributing to skills development. The decree of 6 June 2019, details the content of the national quality framework, which serves as a basis for professional training stakeholders to build their quality approach and aim for the certification required. Certifying bodies are able to audit training organisations on the basis of the quality criteria and indicators outlined in the quality framework, with a view to issuing the required Qualiopi certification.

The national quality framework is organised around seven criteria linked to 32 indicators that apply to all service providers (a “common core”). Ten extra indicators are added specific to apprenticeship or certification training. The quality framework provides the level expected of the service provider to validate each indicator, provides examples of evidence and specific details, depending on the types of the actions (training action, skills assessment, validation of prior experience (VAE)). The indicators can be audited chronologically or in another order, depending on the coherence between the subjects. Evidence may be presented to attest compliance with several indicators at the same time. According to the legislation, the criteria that training providers must meet are:

• Publicising information about the training services offered, the deadlines for accessing training and the results obtained for those who complete the training.

• The precise identification of the objectives of the services offered and the adaptation of these services to the beneficiary groups, when designing the services for different cohorts of individuals.

• Adaptation to the beneficiaries of the services and the reception, support, monitoring and evaluation methods implemented.

• The adequacy of educational, technical and supervisory resources for the education offered.

• The qualifications and professional developments plans for the knowledge and skills of staff responsible for providing the training.

• Registration and investment of the service provider in their professional environment.

• Collecting and considering reviews and complaints made by stakeholders for the training services provided.

Demand: How can enrolment in higher technical education be encouraged or facilitated?

Although ensuring a suite of well-designed and high quality HTE provision can help both students and employers alike demand more HTE, they alone do not determine the overall attractiveness of that education and training. There are raft of policy levers and innovations that countries may pursue to further increase the demand of HTE. These range from funding to course duration to timetable flexibility and curriculum design. There is no shortage of options for countries to innovate, adapt and introduce that can help to position HTE as a valuable pathway in individuals’ journeys through life.

This section elucidates a few of these policies from Denmark and France, to provide some inspiration for efforts to augment and improve HTE in England. For context, it first explores two of the primary policy levers used in England in recent years, to attempt to actively encourage HTE participation. These have been through the expansion of student finance availability and by the nascent attempts to improve the general prestige of the sector through the introduction of HTQs. However, the narrative provides some pause for thought, where more in these areas may need to be done before measures can be judged as having worked.

In England financing reforms and the introduction of HTQs have been implemented to encourage demand

There have been two principle policies in recent years to try to increase the prestige of HTE in England and encourage uptake from students by lowering credit constraints for prospective students and improving employer engagement in new qualifications.

Student loans in England have been expanded to try to increase student demand

One of the tools used to try to encourage participation in HTE in England has been via the expansion of student financing. Alongside existing student loans for higher education, advanced learner loans were introduced so that students in further education could have access to financing to support their studies. The introduction of new HTQs in England was also accompanied by a commensurate incorporation into student loans, so that students could access financing on the same terms.

• Advanced learner loans (ALL): are available to students of approved qualifications from English levels three to six. These include the level four and five qualifications that cover HTE, excepting those that are eligible via student loans for higher education (see below). Loans usually depend on residency and course and provider qualification.

• Student loans for higher education (HE): for HTE these loans are eligible for HNCs/HNDs, foundation degrees, Certificate of Higher Education and level 4 and 5 approved HTQs, so that those HTE awards that were previously covered by ALL could now be financed by HE loans.

There is room for significant growth in the use of loans to fund HTE and to support demand from students. Statistics show that in the 2021/22 academic year, almost half (49.0%) of fee-paying HTE enrolments were self-financed (denoted as without either ALL or student loans for higher education (DfE, 2024[19]). It seems that a large proportion of HTE learners do not make use of loans to finance their studies. This contrasts to student loans for HE students, where it is estimated that around 95% of students utilise loans to fund studies (House of Commons, 2023[20]). This suggests that more could be done to enhance the uptake of financial support to encourage demand.

These two separate loans sit in something of a hinterland. The UK government has recognised that having two separate loan systems has contributed to a system that does not incentivise adults to undertake higher learning flexibly over their lifetime (DfE, 2022[21]). Therefore, it has outlined a pathway to implement reform to amalgamate these two loans into a new Lifelong Learning Entitlement. This is set to be introduced in the 2027/28 academic year for approved English regulated qualification framework level four to six courses (DfE, 2024[22]).

Expansion of funding via loans should be set in broader international context. Loans sit within the spectrum of broader English policymaking on the funding of higher education (reliant on individual self-financing in the first instance). Austria, Denmark, France, and Sweden all make (at least some) HTE free at the point of access. This externalises the costs of education somewhat, in that individuals no longer face a utility-making decision that is dependent on the individual costs to them. This could lead to lower value-for-money education choices. However, in the realm of labour-market focussed, short-duration VET courses, this criticism is less likely to apply. Free point of access to education is likely to facilitate the greatest uptake in demand from students, relative to financing it via a system of loans.

France provides financial incentives to drive participation in apprenticeship – including in BTS

France offers a good example of using financial incentives to increase participation. It offers substantial financial incentives for both employers and students in apprenticeship, including in BTS programmes. Employers benefit from various forms of financial support, including tax breaks, subsidies, and exemptions from social security contributions, incentivising them to offer apprenticeship positions. In addition, the government provides financial assistance to students enrolled in apprenticeship programmes through scholarships, grants, and allowances, which help cover expenses such as tuition fees, transportation, and living costs. This makes apprenticeship training more accessible and attractive to students, facilitating their transition into the workforce with relevant skills and qualifications.

Government subsidies incentivise employers’ apprenticeship provision

The French government is dedicated to supporting companies in their recruitment efforts for work-based learning initiatives, offering various forms of financial aid to incentivise their commitment. There are several forms of financial assistance.

For apprenticeship and professionalisation contracts initiated between 2023 and 2024, eligible companies can receive up to EUR 6 000 in financial assistance during the first year of the apprentice’s contract. This financial support targets programmes up to master’s level (ISCED level 7) and may be combined with additional aid for apprentices with disabilities.

Small companies with fewer than 250 employees receive the financial assistance without any requirements or conditions. However, companies with 250 employees or more must commit to reaching a minimum work-based learning threshold. The criteria for meeting this threshold are outlined as follows:

1. Achieving a minimum rate of 5% of work-based contracts comprising apprenticeship contracts and professionalisation contracts in the total annual employee workforce. This 5% rate is calculated as the ratio between the number of employees in work-based learning contracts and the total annual employee workforce of the company.

2. Or reaching a minimum of 3% of work-based contracts in the total annual employee workforce and having achieved a 10% increase in the number of work-based learning students in the following year in which the apprenticeship and professionalisation contract is concluded.

This minimum work-based learning threshold should be met by the end of the year following the contract's conclusion. For instance, a company hiring a work-based learning student in 2024 must pledge to meet the stipulated threshold by 31st December 2025.

It is important in this context for strong quality assurance processes and monitoring of outcomes, to ensure that the policy is implemented as intended and that it helps individuals to acquire skills and progress in the labour market. The effect of the financial assistance on skills depends critically on the training provided by companies, without which the policy amounts to little more than a recruitment subsidy. Therefore, strong mechanisms need to be put in place both to monitor implementation of training and to assure its quality.

Exceptional financial assistance for hiring apprentices with disabilities promotes inclusion

The Association de gestion du fonds pour l'insertion professionnelle des personnes handicapées (Agefiph) is an organisation in France that manages funds for the professional integration of individuals with disabilities into the workplace. Agefiph provides financial assistance to support employers in hiring individuals with disabilities through apprenticeship contracts. This aid is granted to a company by signing an apprenticeship and professionalisation contract with a person with a disability for a minimum period of 6 months and with at least 24 hours of weekly work. The company is required to submit the request form to the Agefiph regional delegation which corresponds to their location. The maximum aid available amounts to EUR 4 000. It also promotes employment in the public-sector specifically via a dedicated integration fund (see Box 4.3).

This support serves as a valuable resource for employers interested in promoting diversity and inclusion in their workforce by hiring individuals with disabilities through apprenticeship contracts. In 2022, the Agefiph financed one‑third of all apprenticeship contracts for those with disabilities (3 686 out of 11 096) and in 2021 this proportion was as high as 46% (3 716 out of 8 159). Agefiph also supports over one thousand professionalisation contracts for people with disabilities.

Box 4.3. Agefiph has a specific fund to encourage public-sector participation of persons with disabilities

The fund for the integration of people with disabilities in the public service (FIPHFP) helps people with disabilities into public-sector apprenticeships

Employers can benefit from an apprenticeship allowance covering up to 80% of the apprentice's gross remuneration and employer contributions per year, provided other sources of financing are deducted.

Additionally, technical and human aids, such as workstation adaptations and specialised software, are available to compensate for the apprentice's disability, prescribed by the prevention doctor and financed within the FIPHFP's intervention catalogue limits. Financial assistance is also provided for the implementation of a support system, covering the costs of aiding individuals with disabilities in work-based learning programmes. Furthermore, employers may receive an integration bonus if they offer permanent contracts to apprentices upon completion of their apprenticeship period, encouraging the long-term employment of individuals with disabilities. These measures aim to foster inclusivity and accessibility in apprenticeship programmes within the public sector.

The apprenticeship allowance stands out as the primary expenditure for FIPHFP aid, with payments amounting to EUR 4.25 million (27% of the total), confirming the strong interest of employers in employing and training individuals with disabilities. This support stands alongside broader support from the fund, such as support with workplace adaptations (EUR 3.11 million), hearing aids for individuals (EUR 2.44 million) and other training costs (EUR 1.34 million), which provide wraparound support that may also help employers to take on apprentices with disabilities.

The development of the working environment ranks second, with expenditure reaching EUR 3.11 million, representing nearly 20% of the total aid. Financing for hearing aids remains significant and accounts for the third-largest expenditure item in 2022, totaling EUR 2.44 million and constituting over 15% of the total aid. Additionally, training costs for apprentices, totaling EUR 1.34 million, represent just over 8% of the total aid. The expense item for adapted transportation, facilitating home-to-work transport, maintains its position in fifth place, with a funding of EUR 0.83 million, comprising 5.21% of the total aid.

Source: fiphfp (2023[23]), Partner of the commitment of public employers for an inclusive society, www.fiphfp.fr/sites/default/files/2023-03/RAG_2022_VF.pdf.

Apprenticeship programmes are also exempted from tuition fees

When pursuing BTS through work-based learning, whether via an apprenticeship contract or a professionalisation contract, students can access various forms of financial aid. Opting for a work-based learning programme grants students the exemption from tuition fees. As part of a professionalisation contract, the OPCO covers the costs of the training. The professionalisation contract is financed by the continuing training levy. Its financing is based on a national fund for securing professional career paths and on funds allocated by professional branches via the OPCO. The continuing training levy varies depending on the size of the companies:

• For companies with fewer than 11 employees, the training levy is 0.55% of payroll.

• For companies with 11 or more employees, the training levy increases to 1% of payroll.

As part of an apprenticeship contract, companies participate in financing students’ training mainly through the Apprenticeship Tax. The apprenticeship tax is a compulsory tax paid by companies in France, which aims to finance expenses related to professional training. This tax is calculated based on the payroll of the previous year and is due up to 0.68%. Companies with over 250 employees are required to pay an additional apprenticeship contribution (Contribution Supplémentaire à l'Apprentissage, CSA). The CSA rate varies depending on the rate of work-based learning students. Education establishments are invited to submit their application to the training services in the targeted region to benefit from the apprenticeship tax, according to the terms and deadlines defined at the regional level.

It is interesting here to draw a parallel to England, who administers an apprenticeship levy which is overall less generous than the levies imposed in France. The apprenticeship levy in England is 0.5% of total payroll (for firms with an annual paybill of more than GDP 3 million). This contrasts to employers in France, who may be required to pay 1.68% of payroll via the training levy and apprenticeship tax – which covers a broader set of training programmes than only apprenticeship. This means that there is sizeable growth would be required in England to transforms its system into one as generous as that in France. Given the delicate calculation that prospective students (and firms financing education individually) need to make between more uncertain immediate costs and more diffuse and complex prospective gains to productivity, removing some of those upfront costs in decision-making can help to encourage participation.

Within the framework of apprenticeship and professionalisation contracts, students in France are remunerated for their work. The remuneration structures vary based on age and level of initial training. As part of the apprenticeship contract, the apprentice benefits from remuneration that varies according to the age of the apprentice. This remuneration increases with each new year of execution of the contract. The minimum salary received by the apprentice corresponds to a percentage of the SMIC or SMC (conventional minimum salary for the job held) for those over 21 years old. On the other hand, within the framework of the professionalisation contract, remuneration varies depending on the level of initial training and age. Conventional or contractual provisions may provide an extra remuneration for the employee.

Students in BTS receive a careers student card entitling them to discounts. The careers student card, provided by training centres to young people under 26, entitles them to reductions on leisure activities, sports activities, transport and all student discounts. It is valid for the entire duration of the apprenticeship or professionalisation contract. Work-based learning students are also eligible for reimbursement of transportation expenses. The employer typically covers half of the cost of a public transport subscription, and if the student uses a personal vehicle, reimbursement varies according to vehicle running costs. Students may also qualify for personalised housing assistance (APL) administered by the Family Allowance Fund (CAF), based on various criteria including accommodation, family situation, professional status, and income. Furthermore, regional administrations may also provide financing assistance to students in work-based learning programmes. The respective regional council might contribute to travel expenses or essential training equipment costs under an apprenticeship contract.

Higher technical qualification reform in England is designed to foster demand through increased appeal of awards

The on-going roll-out of HTQs in England is designed to increase the attractiveness of Level 4/5 education to both students and employers alike, sitting alongside the reforms to student finance. Qualifications are submitted for approval against employer-developed quality standards built around specific occupations, with the HTQ status - and branding – only available to those that meet the criteria. Through the definition and recognition of quality content, and promotion of approved status, it is hoped to engender increased confidence in and prestige of these qualifications (DfE, 2020[24]).

However, this re-branding needs to be cognisant of the underlying structure of education, which has not changed. For example, a HND course on Engineering will continue to exist both as a HND course and as an approved HTQ. Therefore, rather than bringing clarity to course design, it has the potential to add an extra layer of complexity for students. Careful attention will need to be paid to ensure that the reforms have the desired impact on consolidating provision and increasing the prestige of the awards approved under the HTQ banner.

The DfE is supporting re-branding through the provision of logos for HTQs and branding advice to providers (DfE, 2023[25]). This rebranding attempt will also need to address the relevant fragmentation in delivery that potentially holds back student numbers. It can be difficult to search for available provision. Different services such as UCAS, Prospects and the National Careers Service (NCS), have different websites and search modalities. This can make it difficult for students to identify what courses are available and how they may suit their needs. For HNC and HND qualifications there is no central advertising service and it is dependent on searching specific college websites. Although the UCAS directory does list HTQs it is dependent on providers entering the courses themselves, which has resulted in patchy coverage. Having a centralised system for course marketing and allowing explicit filtering by qualification type, could further aid uptake (for example, consider the unified but flexible approach taken by the Canadian (Ontario) colleges outlined in Chapter 3).

Recognition of prior learning can be an important tool to help engage adults already in the labour to re-skill and up-skill

Whilst recognition of prior learning for courses exists in England, there are no standardised processes to follow and it is not easy for prospective students to ascertain precisely what is permissible in this area. For the HNCs and HNDs issued by Pearson, recognition of prior learning is permissible but not mandatory. Even then, it is only possible to exempt certain modules and not to grant an award in its entirety (Pearson, 2022[26]). For those higher education institutions regulated by the Office for Students, a provider need only have “valid and reliable processes of assessment, including for the recognition of prior learning”, which take no pre-determined form (OfS, 2022[3]). Voluntary guidance provided in the UK Quality Code for Higher Education only goes as far as to state that institutions should have processes to recognise prior learning in their admissions processes, not in the assessment of modules or qualifications (QAA, 2024[27]). This leaves processes which are at best, fragmented, incomplete and variable at a national level.

Lowering both the cost and time taken to attain awards can help to remove some of the barriers for individuals that may not have large financial resources and may also have to fit in education around work and family commitments. Reducing barriers to learning for those with limited flexibility to adapt to the needs and profiles of other adult learners can be an important tool for expanding participation across different types of adult learner. Ontario has a similar system but also offers a direct link with HTE shortening the accumulation of higher ISCED 6 level attainment (see Box 4.4).

Denmark recognises prior experience to reduce education entry costs for adults

One of the tools utilised in Denmark to encourage participation of adults in HTE, is through its recognition of prior learning and experience. This is of particular relevance to England, for whom a large proportion of its HTE student cohort is drawn from older individuals returning to education whilst in work.

In 2007, Denmark introduced legislation to enhance recognition of prior learning in the field of adult education and continuing higher education, with the aim of expanding adult learning participation. The legislation was designed to create better opportunities for individuals with previous experience, regardless of where that experience was acquired. It expanded recognition of prior learning to courses where it had not existed previously and enhanced it in courses where it had existed previously in some form or other, so that it was now an integrated part of all adult learning HTE applications (for its academy profession programmes).

The process of recognising the prior learning of individuals can result in three different outcomes, depending on an individual’s background, their motivations and the individual course specification (Retsinformation, 2021[28]). These outcomes are:

• To meet formal entry requirements for a programme (including having an entry certificate with a view to applying for entry at a later stage).

• To reduce study duration via the granting of exemptions.

• To have a certificate issued for the entire education or training programme in accordance with the regulations of the individual programme, without further study for that programme.

Most often individuals use the assessment of prior learning as a means for entry into the programme, rather than to provide competence recognition of certain modules or entire programmes (with around 90% of applicants use it for this purpose). There is also an inherent tension for institutions providing the recognition of prior learning, in that the recognition of applicants’ prior experience to reduce the number of required taught modules or to issue a qualification in its entirety, has (reduced) funding implications for that institution. Though there is no current evidence as to the extent to which this influences institutional behaviour.

The task of assessing and recognising prior learning lies with the educational institutions that provide the desired education or training programme and can take anywhere between half a day up to five days, depending on the processes in the institution for the course in question (CEDEFOP, 2022[29]).

On demand, the educational institution may issue documentation for the recognition of the applicant’s prior learning. This can be independent of offering a qualification certificate for an award. This is done in the form of an individual competence assessment, in which it is indicated what has been recognised in relation to the objectives, or aims, of the individual programme.

Box 4.4. Ontario education programmes provide flexible routes which recognise prior learning and can accelerate attainment

Fast-track programmes enable individuals to complete diplomas in fewer semesters

To cater for diverse needs and to reduce the cost of education, some colleges recognise prior post-secondary learning, so that students may begin a course with credits already in the bank and therefore need to complete fewer modules to achieve a diploma.

Another version of a fast-track education is via the compression of course delivery time. A diploma is usually convened over two school years; however, it is possible for some programmes to be delivered over the course of one year. This is achieved via continuous learning (without the usual school holidays) and can be supplemented with increased weekly tuition hours.

Diplomas provide expedited pathways to degrees

For students who have completed a college diploma in a similar discipline to a bachelors degree course, it is possible to use these learning as credits towards a full degree, meaning that students can complete degree studies in less time. There may be restrictions on the necessary grade achieved in the diploma for it to count towards degree credits.

For example, at Humber College an individual with an architectural technology diploma is able to complete a bachelor’s degree in commerce in four semesters (with a paid work term) in lieu of the usual eight semesters for those without a relevant diploma.

This pathways ensures that the cost of switching from short-cycle educational to longer tertiary education is minimised for students, providing greater flexibility in the system for students and colleges alike.

Source: George Brown College (n.d.[30]), Fast-track and bridging programs, www.georgebrown.ca/programs/types/fast-track-bridging-programs; Humber College (n.d.[31]), 5 Reasons to Turn Your Diploma into a Humber Degree!, https://humber.ca/transferoptions/transfer-in/diploma-to-degree.html.

The prior learning assessment is based on two separately evaluated elements

A prior learning assessment for the academy profession programmes (including part-time) consists of two separate elements. One part lays out objective criteria for individuals to satisfy the criteria for prior learning, and another part allows institutions to individually evaluate individual’s learning and enables them to decide whether accumulated experience can satisfy criteria, even where this is not part of the objectively defined criteria.

The objective criteria for the assessment are laid down in the legislation for each vocational training programme. The online guide for education provides links to all the regulation for each of the vocational programmes, where it defines which previous education, courses and work experience an individual can get credit for.

In addition to the courses and the work experience that are recognised on the basis of the education order's objective criteria, each business academy can assess whether an individual has other prerequisites from work, education or free time that can be credited and form the basis for further shortening education, if an individual requests it.

The documentation required by the educational institutions to validate previous experience can take a variety of forms, dependent on the experience being reviewed. It can include education certificates, job description, pay checks, examples of work products or development activities, statements from employers and colleagues, descriptions of tasks and activities carried out in individuals’ spare time. Schools are given the flexibility to consider a wide and diverse range of evidence, and can holistically examine an individual’s circumstances to ensure that they are given the best possible opportunity to shorten their required educational programme.

France’s validation of acquired experience (VAE) enables individuals to obtain a professional qualification based on their experience

The validation of non-formal and informal learning, known in France as Validation des acquis de l'expérience (VAE), has introduced a third pathway to acquiring qualifications and vocational certificates. This process allows an individual to be conferred an award without any additional study. The VAE enables individuals to attain a professional qualification based on their previous or ongoing professional experience. Since its introduction in 2002, one-third (around 80 000) out of the total diplomas issued after a VAE assessment have been for a BTS qualification. It is also a pathway which supports women to acquire qualifications, where around 60% of applicants are female (depp, 2022[32]). Despite this being a small total of the total BTS awards over this period, it does offer an access route for adults who have not undertaken formal education to attain an HTE qualification which recognises their experience and can contribute to meaningful future careers without unnecessary further studies.

The professional qualification must be registered in the national directory of professional qualifications (Répertoire National des Certifications Professionnelles, RNCP) for it to be approved within the VAE system. Box 4.5 provides further details on the national directory. The following experience is permissible in the VAE evaluation (although the list is not exhaustive):

• professional activity, whether paid or unpaid

• volunteer work

• listing as a high-level athlete

• union responsibilities

• holding a local electoral mandate or elective position

• participation in the social economy (such as family assistance, or working with people with disabilities).

The experience must be directly relevant to the desired professional qualification. The applicant has the option to receive assistance from a VAE advisor at an Advice Relay Point (PRC) to assemble their application. The PRC is responsible for welcoming, informing and advising individuals pursuing the VAE. This includes assisting candidates choose a certifying body among those eligible and guiding them according to the qualification sought. The PRC can also assist in assessing the suitability of the application and securing funding.

This organisation of VAE in the PRC provides the opportunity of an organised, centralised and coherent process for students seeking this validation, and contrasts to the parochial approach currently taken in England, where individual providers may or may not separately undertake similar approaches.

The initial stage of the VAE process involves compiling and submitting a feasibility file. This file comprises the following items:

• documentation substantiating the duration of the activities carried out by the candidate

• certificates validating the duration of training (whether initial or ongoing) conducted in a professional setting

• certifications or relevant segments that have already been acquired

• any additional documents requested by the certifying authority

• a completed and signed application form.

Eventually, the documentation and certificates substantiating the duration of training will be phased out. The feasibility file must be submitted to a VAE certifying body. The VAE certifying bodies can either be public entities such as ministries, universities, or consular chambers, or they can be private institutions like schools or specialised companies. The VAE certifying body is responsible for issuing VAE diplomas and certifications. Aligned with the activity standards for each profession, the certifying body establishes both the evaluation techniques and the necessary skills. The certifying body will review the file for admissibility, particularly focusing on the required duration of activity, and will determine whether the candidate can continue the VAE procedure. Upon receiving the complete file, the certifying body has two months to notify the applicant of their decision.

Once the request is admissible, the applicant (whether self-employed, employee, or volunteer) must submit a validation file and potentially participate in an interview with the jury responsible for the relevant qualification. This is the main stage of the VAE journey. The validation file comprehensively outlines and analyses the primary activities undertaken during the candidate's relevant experiences, which are directly linked to the desired diploma. Additionally, the interview serves to supplement and clarify the information provided in the validation file. It allows the jury to verify the authenticity of the file, assess the proficiency level of all required skills for obtaining the (partial) qualification, and discuss the applicant’s acquired experience and practices related to the activities or roles they have undertaken.

The jury is composed of professionals and trainers (or teachers), respectively specialists in the profession concerned and the diploma sought. The jury determines whether to grant the diploma in full or partially to the candidate. After the interview, the jury typically communicates the final decision within 15 days. An individual can submit only one application per year for the same certification, and no more than three applications per year, all certifications included. There is financial assistance available to initiate the VAE procedure, from an employer, an OPCO or the regional council.

Box 4.5. Professional qualifications in France are classified in the RNCP

The RNCP serves as a reference for validating the level of competency and expertise acquired through various training programmes, courses, and work experiences. If an individual is assessed as having already obtained the skills in the professional qualification - in their assessment of prior learning (VAE) - they can be exempted from studying them during their course of HTE.

The RNCP provides detailed information about each professional qualification, including the skills and knowledge gained, the professions or job roles targeted, and the criteria for evaluation. The national professional certification commission (La Commission de la certification professionnelle) is responsible for establishing and updating the national directory.

Professional qualifications in the RNCP are classified by level and field of activity. The national framework outlines eight levels of professional qualifications. There is a fairly even distribution of qualifications across the three to six levels, however level seven represents the level with the highest number of qualifications, with over twice as many as the others on average (Table 4.3). BTS is situated at level 5 (awarded on behalf of the State).

Table 4.3. France Compétences recognises most qualifications at level 7 in the RNCP

Professional qualifications by level in the French RNCP

Qualification level	Qualifications awarded on behalf of the State (registration by right)	Other qualifications (registration on request)	Total
Level 8	22	0	22
Level 7	1 049	484	1 533
Level 6	479	446	925
Level 5	503	327	830
Level 4	405	260	665
Level 3	396	163	559
Level 2	0	0	0
No level	0	180	180
Total	2 854	1 860	4 714

Each professional qualification is valid for a maximum of five years, to ensure that changes in occupations and employers' skills requirements feed through into the register. After its expiry date, the qualification becomes inactive and is no longer registered with the RNCP, although it continues to produce legal effects for its holders. It can still be consulted on the France Compétences website so that its holders can use their qualification as often as necessary. The professional qualifications registered in RNPC are recognised throughout the country.

Source: France Compétences (2022[33]), The National Directory of Professional Certifications, www.francecompetences.fr/app/uploads/2022/11/Vademecum-RNCP-VF.pdf.

Skills blocks were introduced to allow individuals with relevant experience to bypass certain training modules but implementation challenges remain

Groups of skills have been created to assess whether an individual has sufficient competencies to waive specific training requirements within a qualification and must be linked with assessment procedures to certify competencies.3

By breaking down competencies into manageable units, skills blocks offer a modular and progressive pathway to certification. This certification can be obtained through training, VAE (validation of acquired experience), or a combination of both. Skills blocks can also be used to certify individual competencies if the entire professional qualification is not achieved, potentially aiding job seekers unless the profession requires full qualification.

Since 2019, all RNCP qualifications must be structured into skills blocks. Without this structure, a qualification cannot be registered in the RNCP. The goal is to simplify transitions and equivalencies between qualifications (France Compétences, 2022[33]). However, the anticipated benefits of skills blocks - such as optimising training pathways and reducing training requirements - have not been fully realised across all educational programmes.

While skills blocks aim to create a modular certification system, significant disparities in implementation remain among training organisations (France Compétences, 2023[34]). Individuals can be exempted from certain modules based on their experience, but initial assessments rarely lead to shorter training durations. Often, training organisations meet the administrative requirement for assessments but fail to integrate these results into their training plans effectively.

The modular certification process does not exempt candidates from final assessments, emphasising the need for precise and secure certification methods. Some qualifications also present obstacles to modularisation, particularly if they lack a public reference framework or require specific training hours before exams. Ongoing efforts to develop skills blocks are expected to improve access to professional qualifications, but challenges remain that need careful consideration to ensure successful implementation.

As England implements its new HTQs and builds on the occupational maps described by IfATE, thinking about how skills blocks and modularisation manifest themselves in English education could aid future policy design. Considering linkages and structure within and across qualifications may help to improve transmission in educational pathways and reduce frictions between them.

References

[29] CEDEFOP (2022), Vocation Education and Training in Europe: Denmark. System Description, CEDEFOP, https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/print/pdf/node/147114.

[32] depp (2022), Note D’Information n° 24.27, La ministre de l’Éducation nationale et de la Jeunesse, https://www.education.gouv.fr/media/196098/download.

[19] DfE (2024), Higher level learners by Primary funding source and Mode of study, Department for Education, https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/data-tables/permalink/8cc74977-cb21-4705-40a8-08dce44cbd16.

[22] DfE (2024), Policy Paper - Lifelong Learning Entitlement Overview, Department for Education, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/lifelong-learning-entitlement-lle-overview/lifelong-learning-entitlement-overview#next-steps.

[2] DfE (2024), Skills England to transform opportunities and drive growth, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/skills-england-to-transform-opportunities-and-drive-growth (accessed on 28 August 2024).

[25] DfE (2023), Guidance - Higher technical qualification provider toolkit (accessed January 2024).

[21] DfE (2022), Lifelong Loan entitlement: government consultation, Department for Education, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/621669a28fa8f549069a658e/CP_618_Lifelong_Loan_Entitlement_Consultation_print_version.pdf.

[6] DfE (2021), Government response to Dame Shirley Pearce’s Independent Review of the Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework (TEF), Department for Education, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60059ce78fa8f55f6f209600/Goverment_response_to_the_independent_review_of_TEF_.pdf.

[24] DfE (2020), Reforming Higher Technical Education: Government Consultation Response, Department for Education.

[17] DGEFP (2024), Référentiel National Qualité, Ministère du Travail, du Plein emploi et de l’Insertion, https://travail-emploi.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/guide_de_lecture_qualiopi_v9_du_8_janvier_2024-2.pdf.

[23] fiphfp (2023), Partenaire de l’engagement desemployeurs publics pour une société inclusive RAPPORT D’ACTIVITÉ ET DE GESTION 2022, Fonds pour l’insertion des personnes handicapées dans la Fonction publique, https://www.fiphfp.fr/sites/default/files/2023-03/RAG_2022_VF.pdf.

[34] France Compétences (2023), Rapport de la Médiatrice, France Compétences, https://www.francecompetences.fr/fiche/publication-du-rapport-2023-de-la-mediatrice-de-france-competences/.

[33] France Compétences (2022), Vademecum Le Répertoire national des certifications professionnelles (The National Directory of Professional Certifications), https://www.francecompetences.fr/app/uploads/2022/11/Vademecum-RNCP-VF.pdf.

[30] George Brown College (n.d.), Fast-track and bridging programs, https://www.georgebrown.ca/programs/types/fast-track-bridging-programs (accessed on 19 September 2024).

[20] House of Commons (2023), Student Loan Statistics, House of Commons Library, https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01079/SN01079.pdf.

[31] Humber College (n.d.), 5 Reasons to Turn Your Diploma into a Humber Degree!, https://humber.ca/transferoptions/transfer-in/diploma-to-degree.html (accessed on 19 September 2024).

[16] IGAS/IGÉSR (2023), La qualité de la formation professionnelle, Inspection générale des affaires sociales / Inspection générale de l’Éducation, du Sport et de la Recherche, https://www.igas.gouv.fr/sites/igas/files/2024-06/La%20qualit%C3%A9%20de%20la%20formation%20professionnelle.pdf.

[11] MTCU (2009), “Framework for Programs of Instruction”, p. p4, https://www.tcu.gov.on.ca/pepg/documents/FrameworkforPrograms.pdf.

[10] MYH (2019), Kvalitetskriterier för yrkeshögskolan (Quality criteria for the university of applied sciences), Myndigheten för yrkeshögskolan, https://assets.myh.se/docs/publikationer/informationsmaterial/faktablad-kvalitetskriterier-for-yrkeshogskolan.pdf.

[13] OCQAS (2023), College Quality Assurance Audit Process - Guidelines and Framework 2023/24, Ontario College Quality Assurance Service, https://www.ocqas.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/CQAAP-Guidelines-and-Framework_for-2023_2024-Aug-18-2023.pdf.

[12] OCQAS (2022), OCQAS Global QA Collaboration and Engagement Plan, Ontario College Quality Assurance Service, https://www.ocqas.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/OCQAS-Global-QA-Collaboration-and-Engament-Plan-2022-2023_.pdf.

[1] OECD (2024), Quality Matters: Strengthening the Quality Assurance of Adult Education and Training, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f44a185b-en.

[4] OfS (2024), How we regulate quality and standards, https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/for-providers/quality-and-standards/how-we-regulate-quality-and-standards/ (accessed on 19 July 2024).

[5] OfS (2022), Regulatory advice 15: Monioring and Intervention, Office for Students, https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/media/jurjzclt/regulatory-advice-15-monitoring-and-intervention-nov-2022-update.pdf.

[3] OfS (2022), Securing student success: Regulatory framework for higher education in England, Office for Students, p. p24, https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/media/fmzbr50j/securing-student-success-regulatory-framework-for-higher-education-in-england-2022.pdf.

[7] Ofsted (2022), Risk assessment methodology: good and outstanding further education and skills providers, Ofsted, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/risk-assessment-methodology-for-further-education-and-skills-providers/risk-assessment-methodology-good-and-outstanding-further-education-and-skills-providers (accessed on 19 September 2024).

[26] Pearson (2022), Recognition of prior learning policy and process, Pearson, https://qualifications.pearson.com/content/dam/pdf/Support/policies-for-centres-learners-and-employees/recognition-of-prior-learning-and-process-policy.pdf.

[8] QAA (2024), Our work in England, https://www.qaa.ac.uk//en/about-us/our-main-areas-of-work/our-work-in-england (accessed on 19 July 2024).

[27] QAA (2024), The UK Quality Code for Higher Education, Quality Assurance Agency, https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/quality-code/uk-quality-code-for-higher-education-2024.pdf?sfvrsn=19a5b881_32.

[9] QAA (2020), Characteristics Statement: Foundation Degree, https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/quality-code/foundation-degree-characteristics-statement-2020.pdf.

[18] République Française (2922), Article L6316-4 - Code du travail (Labour Code article L6316-4), Légifrance, https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000038951530.

[14] République Française (2018), LOI n° 2018-771 du 5 septembre 2018 pour la liberté de choisir son avenir professionnel (LAW No. 2018-771 of September 5, 2018 for the freedom to choose one’s professional future), Légifrance, https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/id/JORFTEXT000037367660.

[15] République Française (2014), LOI n° 2014-288 du 5 mars 2014 relative à la formation professionnelle, à l’emploi et à la démocratie sociale (LAW No. 2014-288 of March 5, 2014 relating to vocational training, employment and social democracy), Légifrance, https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/id/JORFTEXT000028683576.

[28] Retsinformation (2021), Bekendtgørelse om realkompetencevurdering i forhold til akademi- og diplomuddannelser på Uddannelses- og Forskningsministeriets område (Prior learning assessment for academy and diploma programs, Ministry of Education and Research), Ministry of Education and Research, https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2021/1328.

Notes

← 1.  In England, these bodies are known as “non-departmental public bodies”, independent agencies which do not have direct ministerial control but for whom government ministries have an oversight function.

← 2.  Pooled funds include financing by a skills operator, by the commission mentioned in legislation Article L. 6323-17-6, by the State, by the regions, by the Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations, by France Travail or by Agefiph.

← 3.  Under Article L. 6113-1 of the French Labour Code, professional qualifications consist of cohesive sets of skills essential for independently practicing a profession.