ELGPN Workpackage 2:Developing Lifelong Guidance Systems
Results of a mapping exercise
Ronald G. SultanaEuro-Mediterranean Centre for Educational Resarch
University of Malta
Long Term Objectives of the ELGPN
• Support for policy development• Policy sharing • Information gathering • Policy analysis and research • Use of reference tools • Exploiting project outcomes• Strengthening representative structures
Themes of the work packages
Wkp1. Network management and chairmanshipWkp 2. Support for policy development and
implementation at national levelWkp 3. Strengthening representative structures at
national levelWkp 4. Synergy between EU funded projects on lifelong
guidanceWkp 5. Support for outcome focused evidence-based
practice and policy developmentWkp 6. Monitoring and evaluationWkp 7. Dissemination and exploitation (Valorisation)
Citizen-centred features
Policy development features
System-coordination features
Targeting with universal provision
Review features
International features
Goals for WP2Support for policy development and implementation at national level
1. To develop concrete approaches facilitating the development of:- national LLG policies - national LLG systems
2. Through:- identifying examples of policies at national level- identifying critical success/failure factors- abstracting key principles/key issues- sharing results with Network members- bringing to political attention at national / EU levels
Countries that responded to Mapping Questionnaire
1. Austria2. Bulgaria3. Cyprus4. Czech Republic5. Denmark6. Finland7. France8. Germany9. Greece10. Hungary11. Iceland12. Ireland
13. Latvia14. Lithuania15. Malta16. Norway17. Poland18. Portugal19. Romania20. Slovakia21. Slovenia22. Sweden23. Turkey24. UK (Scotland)
__________Missing: Belgium, Estonia, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Spain, UK (Eng, Wales, NI)
Citizen-centred
0
5
10
15
20
25
Exists
Priority
MgtSkills
Access APEL Right Key Role in QA
Referral
Gaps in implementation of Resolution
1. Many citizens still do not have access to information and advice.
2. APEL services are still underdeveloped.
3. Wariness of embedding CG as legal entitlement.
4. Schools and workplaces offer limited opportunities to support development of career management skills.
5. Citizen input in QA of services is very limited.
Policy examples
1. Citizen-centred features- entitlement in legislation [Fi, Lt, Pl, Pt, Sw, Tk]
- more suitable opening hours [Dk]
- several curriculum initiatives [Cz, Fr, Gr, Ir, Lv, Lt, Sc]
- guidance in core curricula [Fi]
- APEL [Fr, Ge, Pt, Sw]
- Youthreach / second chance education [Ir]
- client feedback on quality of service in national database [Ir]
Policy development
0
5
10
15
20
25
Exists
Priority
Integrated with LLL & empl.
Co-ord policydevel.
Clear roles
Stakeholder involvement
Gaps in implementation of Resolution
1. Not all LLL and employability strategies have formally recognised the potential role of CG.
2. Cross sectoral collaboration remains a major challenge for most countries.
3. Stakeholder involvement in policy development is limited, and often sector bound.
Policy examples
2. Policy development features- national policies and strategy framework [Cz, Dk, Lt, Mt, Pl]
- integrated in LLL strategy [A, B, Cy, Sk, Sl, Ir, Sc…]
- interministerial delegate for youth guidance [Fr]
- roles defined in relevant laws [Pl, Pt]
- stakeholder thematic working groups [Fi]
System co-ordination
0
5
10
15
20
25
Exists
Priority
Local partner-
ships
Co-ord of educ & empl
Wkplaceguidance
PartnersIn service
mgt
Central frame-works
Gaps in implementation of Resolution
1. Different rationale and contrasting interpretations of CG between sectors.
2. National guidance forums and other collaborative structures still fragile.
3. Focus is still on welfare of existing organizational arrangements, rather than with systemic restructuring.
Policy examples
3. System co-ordination features- National / Regional Guidance Forums [several countries]
- ‘Missions locales’ & ‘maisons de’emploi’ [Fr]
- ‘Reseau pour l’insertion des jeunes’ [Fr]
- co-ordination mechanisms [Ee, Ir, It, Lt, Lv, No]
- role of EKEP to develop a unified strategy [Gr]
- major role played by Euroguidance in Poland
- national standards for services [Lt, Sc]
- CG regional partnerships [No]
- collaboration protocol [Tk]
- Good practice guide to work in partnerships [Ee]
- Consolidation of LMI on one website [Dk. Lt. Se]
- Joint training of education and PES staff [Mt, No]
- Closer linkages between schools and PES [Se, Ro, Eng]
Universal provision and targeting
0
5
10
15
20
25
Exists
Priority
Early leavers
Free to all
Women
Older workers
Disabled
At-risk workers
Minoritygroups
Migrants
Special measures for target groups
Gaps in implementation of Resolution
1. The balance between universal provision and targeting of special groups is difficult to manage.
2. Much of the responsibility is still falling on the state, leading to important gaps in service provision.
3. Provision for adults is often limited to the unemployed.
4. Little attention to the marketing of career guidance: many citizens still unaware of the support that is available.
Policy examples
4. Universal provision and targeting- marketing and branding of services [Sc]
- enhanced use of ICT [most countries]
- ‘missions generales et locale d’insertion’ [Fr]
- strategies targering early school leavers [Fr, Ge, Mt, Pt, Sk]
- budget earmarked for services to minorities [Fi, Sw]
- workers at risk entitled to guidance [Fi]
- special centres for workers with disabilities [Ge, Lv, Ro]
- dedicated minority counsellors [Nw]
- targeting at risk [Dk, Fi, Ir, Sw]
- improved access for adults [Ir]
- reaching out to communities CG points, ‘neutral localities’
Review features
0
5
10
15
20
25
Exists
Priority
Evidence base
Regular reviews
Efficiency & effect.
Cost/benefit
Occup Forecasting
Determine policy
Careers info
Assment tools
Reasons for research
Gaps in implementation of Resolution
1. Evidence base remains weak in most countries.
2. QA reviews are often limited:
• No on-going evaluation procedures
• Confined to a single or small range of sectors
• Do not comprehensively target the whole range of clients
• Do not focus on CGI, but as part of a range of services
• Voluntary – little monitoring
• Focus is often on quantitative indicators.
Policy examples
5. Review features- major review of guidance sector [A, Dk, Ee, Fi, Ge, Gr, Sl, Sw]
- UNIV project for APL [Cz]
- joint inter-ministerial platform [Fi]
- Improved information systems [Cz, Ie, Mt, Se, Ro]
- research centres [Dk, Fi, Uk]
- QA systems & tools [DK, Ie, Uk], standards [Dk, Lt]
- Client-satisfaction surveys [many countries: largely quantitative]
- Transparency re. effectiveness; e-survey tools [Dk, Fi, Ie]
- Matrix; EFQM, Charter Mark; mystery shopping [Uk]
- inpsection [Fr, Uk]
International features
0
5
10
15
20
25
Exists
Priority
Ministry co-op
EU ref.
Bi/multi-lateral
Joint res
Study visits
CI for mobility
Exchange programs
Infoexch
Ministerial collaboration
Peer learning
National centre
Gaps in implementation of Resolution
Missing: strong, strategic, leadership connecting national to regional / EU developments.
National and trans-national structures are fragile.
Few countries have set up national CG centres.
Policy examples
6. International features- EU developments as a benchmark in staff training [Dk]- role of Euroguidance and EU projects [several countries]- participation in EU surveys [most countries]- participation in ELGPN [most countries]- guidance reseach centres [Dk, Fi, UK]