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]