Developing a new quality assurance mechanism for non-formal adult learning involves numerous, often consecutive steps. The Quality Assurance in Adult Learning Decision Tree has been developed to help public authorities planning reform of their quality assurance systems make sure they take into consideration the most relevant decisions. These include: (1) whether the new mechanism should be mandatory for providers to operate or receive public funds; (2) what is the scope of the mechanism; (3) which instrument should be at the core of the new quality framework; (4) what are the characteristics of the instrument; (5) who does what; (6) whether additional support structures should be implemented; and (7) whether it is necessary to establish measures for a transition period.
Improving the Quality of Non‑Formal Adult Learning
Abstract
Overall, the available empirical evidence on the best quality assurance mechanisms in Europe is still too scarce in order to provide univocal recommendations for countries that are interested in embarking in the elaboration of a national quality assurance programme or reforming it to enhance quality. This is particularly the case in the context of non-formal adult learning with its mix of public and private interventions. Yet, this review of the current existing practices suggests that it is paramount to initiate a discussion about the quality of adult education, and that there exist several examples of successful initiatives at European level to draw inspiration from.
To assist public authorities that are considering improving or creating a quality assurance system for non-formal adult learning, the following decision tree aims at providing an overview of the factors that they need to consider in its design and implementation (Figure 5.1).
As discussed throughout the report, the first decision that the authorities need to make is to establish the approach they want to follow in creating the quality assurance system (Decision #1). The choice is between imposing rigid minimum quality standards that providers of adult training need to meet in order to operate or receive public funds (regulatory approach) or adopting non-binding guidelines to help providers improve the quality of their services (advisory approach). They then need to determine the scope of the intervention, and clarify whether they want the new mechanism to cover all providers of adult learning, or only a subset of them – for example only those delivering basic skills training, or only those accessing public funding, etc. (Decision #2).
Identifying the main instrument to operationalise the new quality assurance framework (Decision #3) and its characteristics (Decision #4) probably requires the greatest efforts, both in terms of time, coordination, and involvement of all relevant stakeholders. Elements to be taken into consideration when designing effective certifications, labels and evaluations are numerous and complex, and should be therefore planned with the aid of experts and academics. Moreover, as stressed by this review of European practices, the participation of all the key adult learning actors in this phase is crucial to ensure the buy-in of providers, social partners and local governments. More so if quality labels already exists.
In parallel of establishing the terms of the main instrument, the authorities have to figure out who will be in charge of the implementation and overall governance of the new quality assurance mechanism (Decision #5). European countries have used combinations of public, private and non-profit bodies, both at national and local levels. The decision clearly depends on the existing infrastructure in each country, and it may also involve the creation of a new ad-hoc body. Furthermore, this report has emphasised the importance of adopting a holistic approach to quality and the elaboration of a whole series of initiatives to support the development of a quality culture in adult learning. As such, governments are encouraged to think more broadly on what additional support structures should be put in place, based on their own national context, strengths and weaknesses (Decision #6). Finally, transition measures may have to be adopted to help the sector gradually adapt to the new quality assurance system and encourage the buy-in of the wider public (Decision #7).
