LLL-Forum Evaluation by Partners (Summary)

Page 1

LLL-FORUMS SUMMARY REPORT Partner Feedback and Participants’ Evaluation February 2016


This project has been funded with the support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. Grant Agreement Nr. 543527-LLP-1-2013-1-BE-KA1NW

Contributors # Organisation name 1 ITPIO, RIE

Country Bulgaria

2 CVO Antwerpen




Contributors to the report  Ludmil Kovachev, lkovachev@itpio.eu  Nadezhda Kamburova, nkamburova@itpio.eu  IvayloZlatanov, mail@rio-blg.com  Hannelore Audenaert, Hannelore.audenaert@cvoantwerpen.be  Hilde Van Laer, hilde.vanlaer@cvoantwerpen.be  Hans Daale / Jan Nienhuis, info@leido.nl

4 Regional Labour Office in Krakow (WUP Krakow)


Małgorzata Sobolewska, msobolewska@wup-krakow.pl, amarut@wup-krakow.pl

5 APG 6 CACERES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, INDUSTRY AND SERVICES 7 Mardin Provincial Directorate Of Social Studies and Projects

Portugal Spain

 

Luis Cara d’ Anjo, luiscaradanjo@netcabo.pt Raul Iglesias, plasencia2@camaracaceres.es


Murat Kaya, muratkaya4444@yahoo.com

Introduction The LLL-HUB is a project funded with the support of the Lifelong Learning Programme under Key Activity 1 “Policy cooperation and innovation” and coordinated by EUCIS-LLL. Engaging 10 partners from 8 EU countries and beyond as well as with various backgrounds (public authorities, civil society organisations…), it has lasted for two years from December 2013 to May 2016. In the continuation of the LLL-LAB, each partner set up a LLL-FORUM (standardised seminar), where the LLL experts identified during the research phase discussed the 3 topics to enrich desk research. The objective of the FORUM was to implement a phase of dialogue, the LLL-FORUM, complementary to the research phase initiated during the LLL-LABS. Each partner organising a FORUM has provided an individual report on their FORUM. The reports were sent to the CVO Antwerpen or uploaded on OnlyOffice. This document represents an overall report that summarises all the results from the organised FORUMS in the partner countries.

Timeframe The organisation of the FORUMS consisted of two main phases: preparation phase, and promotional phase. Two particular events marked this timeframe related to the experimentation program i.e. the day when invitations were sent, and the date of the FORUM. By analysing the individual FORUMS reports following conclusions can be drawn:  The partners did not experience any deviations from the planned activities  The preparation phase was mainly from January 2015 until April/May 2015  The duration of the promotional phase varied from several weeks like in the case of Spain to several months as done by the Polish partner  The FORUMS were organised during the period March – May 2015: o 27 March 2015, LLL-HUB FORUM – Bulgaria o 13 April 2015, LLL-HUB FORUM – Poland o 23 April 2015, LLL-HUB FORUM – Portugal o 11 May 2015, LLL-HUB FORUM – Belgium o 13 May 2015, LLL-HUB FORUM – Spain o 28 May 2015, LLL-HUB FORUM – Netherland  Due to the political events in Syria and Turkey, Mardin Provincial Directorate Of Social Studies and Projects (TU) implemented their FORUM based on the following timeframe: o Preparation phase: 1 June 2015 until 11 November 2015 o Day invitations were sent: 1 October 2015 o Promotional phase: 1 September 2015 until 11 November 2015 o Date of the FORUM: 12 November 2015

Schedule of the day Each LLL-HUB FORUM was organised in one-day event centred on the 4 (four) main sessions as suggested in the methodology: Session 1 National Frameworks for lifelong learning: Central question: Are education and towards flexible pathways and comprehensive training enabling flexible pathways education and training systems for learning? Session 2 Lifelong learning actors: taking the jump Where are we heading to? Learning towards learner-centred systems focused on the trainer or learning focused on the trainee? Session 3 Lifelong Learning communities: partnerships Have partnerships and networks and shared responsibility helped/added any value to LLL? What is their role in what concerns shared responsibility? Session 4 Policy recommendations to improve the What should be suggested in what implementation of Lifelong Learning concerns policies about LLL? In all cases at least 45 minutes were reserved for discussion on each of the sessions proposed. The events included introductory part in which the presentation of the project, aims of the FORUM and experts took part. Most of the partners organised the day in two parts, having a specific thematic

workshop in the morning, followed by the official FORUM in the afternoon. The thematic workshops included:  Presentation of the National Report on LLL State of Play (Bulgaria)  Strategic Panel "Poland-Malopolska - evaluation of the implementation of the Europe 2020 Strategy in the area of adult learning" (Poland)  Lifelong Learning: always learning. The PT experience; Presentation of the State of Play (Spain)  Possible implementation of a new type of qualification at level 5, anHBd - Higher Professional Diploma1 (The Netherlands).  Experiences of the Institute of Lifelong Learning in Turkey: Evaluation of Applications (Turkey) The expert sessions were mainly conducted in groups of experts guiding the discussion around the identified topics. The central questions were also connected with the desk research and current state of play where applicable. Thus, the events were organised as envisaged in the project and related methodology. The schedules of the day are presented in greater detail in the Annex 1 of this report.

List of participants The lists of participants are included in the Annex 2 of this report. Information on the participants’ background and experiences for different countries is presented below. Bulgaria: All participants have long experience in education and training, adult training, lifelong guidance, development and implementation of LLL policy in practice and have strong commitment to making LLL in the country a reality. The participants were representing:  national authority in education and training responsible for development of LLL policy and legislative basis in the field, coordination and monitoring of their – Ministry of Education and Science, Department “Lifelong Learning”;  national employment authority – Employment Agency, responsible for organization of vocational training courses and key competences trainings of employed and unemployed persons, provision of career guidance services to employed and unemployed persons in the country;  regional structures of Ministry of Education and Science – responsible for control of education and training institutions on their territory, qualification of teachers and participate in development of regional LLL policy and practice;  regional structure of Employment Agency – Regional Employment Service of Blagoevgrad, responsible for organization of vocational training courses and key competences trainings of employed and unemployed persons, provision of career guidance services to employed and unemployed persons;  regional authorities – regional administration, responsible for implementation of LLL policy at regional level;


This subject is connected to the project, as an important development to get more flexible learning pathways (e.g. from VET to HE), also for adult learners.

  

  

local authorities – municipalities, responsible for implementation of LLL policy at municipal level; regional employers’ organization – participating in the development and implementation of regional LLL policy and practice; nationally representative employee’s organisation Podkrepa – member of all national tripartite councils which discuss and approve the development of human resources in the country; member of National LLL Council; education and training providers – universities, general secondary schools, vocational schools with experience in implementation of projects under LLP, in provision of continuing vocational training, in LLL promotion activities and information campaigns at national, regional and local level; organisations providing non-formal training according to the interests of children and students; Career guidance centre in the Blagoevgrad region; Industrial cluster of electro mobiles, active in relationships with education and training providers.

Belgium: Following picture represents an overview of the sectors represented by the experts:

Netherlands: All the participants in the FORUM have a background that assures that they could contribute to the discussions about the problems, having a better national strategy on LLL. They have also the right experiences to judge about the problems Netherlands had with that in the last five years and about the possible solutions. They have to right background for making proposals to start a national platform on LLL, as broad as possible. Portugal & Poland: The list of participants is presented in the Annex 2. Additional information on the experts background, experience and similar can be found in the EXPERTS section of the LLL-HUB site (http://www.lll-hub.eu/our-experts/). Spain: The participants represented the following sectors:  National authorities: ministry of education (Chief Educational Service Coordination), and employment public service (training and employment)  Academic sector: university and university centres (Lawyer, Teaching, research, PhD, commissions)  Business sector: chambers and associations (experts in training and employment)  Consulting sector: business and innovation consultants, development and management of European projects.

Your experiences Please provide an answer to the following questions: How did you get in touch with your experts? Bulgaria: The decision was made to involve the core group, experts who provided important and useful information and opinion and “new” experts in order to have more contributions from practitioners’ point of view. Most of the experts ITPIO has contacted directly because the organization has already worked with them on different issues, and was aware on their expertise and capacity. The other part was invited by contacting institutions and organizations from the partners’ network and the one of Regional Inspectorate of Blagoevgrad. To all experts official invitation has been sent accompanied with brief project presentation, Agenda of the FORUM and the draft version of the national State of Play. Belgium: During a preparatory meeting in January 2015, the internal task force of LLLHUB at CVO Antwerpen developed a first list of participants based on the different sectors to be included in the discussion and on their own network of contacts. Then, the names were divided over the different task force members based on common meetings in the future and personal contacts. Those who could not be reached personally were invited by e-mail. Netherlands: All experts are ‘members’ of Leido – meaning that they are in Leido’s files (no membership fee and other obligations – having the structure of Leido in mind). Also most of them are participating in one of Leido’s working groups. Some of them have also participated in the startup (as an experiment) of DUCIS-LLL. And last but not least the most important experts are ‘colleagues’, meaning that they are responsible for an organisation involved in LLL, amongst other issues and activities. The management of Leido keeps close contacts with them. Poland: Public authorities (panellists) were contacted through official letters and followed up by phone calls, some were approached personally (when the occasion came out during meetings in Krakow). Most of the experts are the representatives of various business, educational and training institutions gathered around Malopolska Partnership for Lifelong Learning, with whom WUP Krakow is in frequent contact. They were informed about the LLL-FORUM during the general meeting of the Partnership which was held in November 2014. The invitations together with the agenda and all the necessary information about the event were sent to them by email. Portugal: APG has a pool of experts in several areas: training, education, human resources management. All of them have been APG’s partners in previous projects/works. APG joined them in a meeting to tell about LLL-HUB purposes and their role in it. Spain: The chamber used its network and contacted the experts by phone and mail. Turkey: sent out an official letter to the experts, follow-up by telephone and e-mail + face to face invitations

Where did the FORUM take place? Why did you select this location? Bulgaria: The FORUM took place in the town of Blagoevgrad, a city were the other Bulgarian project partner is located. The location was selected due to the following: its proximity to the capital city, Sofia, and adequate infrastructure in terms of hotels and similar; the location was known by many of the participants; and the costs of the event in Blagoevgrad fitted the envisaged budget. Belgium: The Flemish FORUM took place at the head quarter of CVO’s school district since this location offers a nice view over Antwerp, 2 separate meeting rooms which could be built into 1, catering services and it’s situated next to a metro stop. Netherlands: The FORUM took place in Amersfoort-Schothorst, in the premises of ECABO. This is done in line with the partner’s usual practice of having all its meetings organised there. Poland: Discussions were conducted in the meeting hall of Malopolska Council located at the Marshal Office in Krakow. It is a very prestigious place where authorities held their meetings and debates. It is spacious, can fit a large number of guests, and has all the necessary equipment for holding debates. By the room there is a comfortable place with couches, where guests could rest during the breaks, socialise, have coffee and lunch. Workshops were conducted in an additional room in the same building. Both rooms were made available free of charge. Portugal: The FORUM took place in ESCE/Management School of Setubal University, 50km. far from Lisbon. Setubal is a very industrialized city and surroundings, like automobile factories and wine industry. ESCE is a management and education school. Spain: The venue was located in the Caceres Chamber headquarter as it fulfilled all criteria for enabling proper logistics to the organised FORUM. Turkey: The Turkish FORUM was held in the Hilton Garden Inn Hotel since it is one of the most suitable places in Mardin. Difficulties you might have encountered when organising the FORUM: There were no major difficulties organising the FORUM. In this regard, as stated by the partners, the methodology set was very helpful. The partners, however, faced certain challenges such as:  Setting up a date suitable for all, due to the experts’ busy schedules or due to a certain political situation (cf. Turkey).  In some cases, having the key people to attend the whole event was challenging. Thus, it might be good to consider more but shorter meetings in the future.  Some participants cancelled very last-minute and finding other participants was quite challenging at such short notice. Meaning of the scale: 

1 "very poor" … to 5 "excellent"

Organisation of the FORUM Location of Venue






4.5 X


Room Duration Agenda and structure of meeting Organisation of exchanges and debates


If you worked with different sessions in your FORUM, what was the most successful session of your FORUM? All partners addressed the four sessions in their FORUMS. The evaluation reports indicates that most successful sessions considering the scope of issues discussed in the time limits and recommendations defined were:  Session 1: National Frameworks for lifelong learning: towards flexible pathways and comprehensive education and training systems, and  Session 4: Policy recommendations to improve the implementation of Lifelong Learning The discussion around the session 1 was more vivid than the other sessions. This could perhaps be explained by the fact that it was the first session, but also by the fact that is more closely linked to the experts own daily practice. Equally important was the session 4 that provided an excellent opportunity for formulating real good recommendations. What was the most successful aspect of your FORUM? In general, the debates and exchange of points of view of the experts and representatives of the different actors (e.g. education, policy makers, etc.) were the main aspects that contributed to the overall success of the organised FORUMS. For Bulgaria, the most successful aspect of the FORUM was the composition of experts itself as well as the opportunity for discussion and exchange of information, ideas and experiences of the participants. Similar applies for the Flemish FORUM that allowed experts to exchange ideas, get to know each other and their organisations. As emphasized by the participants in the Netherlands, the most important aspect was the fact that the FORUM provided an opportunity for meeting the same kind of experts to discuss important and concrete issues. Moreover, as stated in the Spanish evaluation, the experts got to reflect and contribute to give a wide list of recommendations. Due to the innovative nature of lifelong learning in Turkey, the most successful aspect here was also to be able to discuss lifelong learning with different target groups. What could have been improved? What would you have done differently, looking back at the experience of organising the FORUM? The partners have identified three potential areas for improvement: the timeframe for discussion, the diversity of participants, and the visibility of the event itself. The need for extending the time for discussion was identified within the Turkish, Bulgarian, Holland and Polish partners, stating that this will allow for more talking about the recommendations and conclusions i.e. enabling more time for reflections. In Belgium, it was identified that more participants, coming from different sectors, should have been invited. For instance, the Public employment service (VDAB) was not presented and this was a clear

lack during the discussion. To address this, more people should be involved in the internal task force that would allow for reaching out to more experts. For increasing the FORUM’s visibility and outreach, the Portuguese partner suggests an improvement in the campaign itself that will enable getting attendants to the debates, whereas the Spanish proposal is integration of the FORUM inside a bigger event that will increase the visibility of the FORUM’s results. Meaning of the scale: 

or 1 "totally disagree" …to 5 "totally agree"

Content of the FORUM and interest regarding the issues in LLL policy and practices I think that the desk Research was valuable during the FORUM. If not, please specify what you think is missing: A suggestion was made for organisation of a kind of ‘pre-FORUM’, just about the report, with a small group of experts – to find out what the best issues are for the discussion (= actual developments, important for the project). I think that the FORUM enabled us to set a few interesting points about LLL issues. I think that the topics explored provided a good coverage of LLL issues. If not, please specify what is missing. … I found the FORUM rather innovative. I think the FORUM helped to share experiences about the LLL issues in a new way. I think the FORUM enabled the discussion amongst new valuable professionals. As a whole, I found the FORUM profitable for me as a professional.





4.5 5




How to go further? I could envisage the following actions in my region/territory/Institution to propagate the outcomes of the FORUM: In Bulgaria, the National State of Play will be published in a brochure and will be disseminated among all stakeholders in the country:  Government institutions – Ministry of Education and Science, Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, National Agency for Vocational Education and Training, Employment Agency;  Nationally representative organizations of employers and nationally representative organizations of employees;  Education providers – secondary general and vocational schools, universities;  Adult training providers – NGOs, centres for vocational training;

 

Non-formal learning providers - Community centres, NGOs, training organizations; Organizations active in implementation of projects in the field of education and training.

In Belgium, organising a second FORUM will be considered. This extra FORUM would bring together the former (and new) experts for the purpose of, for instance, validating the final Lab and have experts prepared for the European Agora. In the Netherlands, the focus will be placed on dissemination of the information to the various stakeholders and on follow up activities. These includes:  Newsletters, website  Using the outcomes for a seminar in October  A second FORUM in November  Discussions with the Ministry  Report on LLL in The Netherlands - having a national platform on LLL  Memo’s for other stakeholders In Poland, the plan is to organise one-two more meetings with experts to work more closely on the recommendations, to build more of a shared understanding of needs/problems/barriers and possible solutions. In Portugal, 4 additional events are planned that are supposed to reply the national FORUM: 2 in Lisbon (September 24th and 1st of October), one in Porto (September 16th) and a last one in Évora (December). Each FORUM will be held by partners involving universities, entrepreneurship, and institutions involving professional qualifications and employment. All these 4 events will follow the methodology that supported the national FORUM in April, in Setúbal, regarding the same goal: to make the national diagnosis of Lifelong Learning. In the meantime, the focus will be on further dissemination of the information and results achieved through the social media (Facebook, Twitter) and periodically in two magazines regarding HRM: “Pessoal” (monthly) and “Aprender magazine”. In Spain, the main focus will be placed on promoting the results and their exploitation among the experts’ organisations as well as keeping in touch with the experts. In Turkey, the plan is to organise new FORUMS and set up lifelong learning platform. After this FORUM, the local partner decided to moderate different kind of FORUMS with public resources. They for example did one of these activities in March 2016 where 47 NGOs and 8 public organisation participated. The topic was about how to integrate vocational education into business life. Here is what for me was the most interesting in this FORUM (based on the discussions that were held): The most interesting aspect of the organised FORUMS represents the possibility of joining different and relevant experts to share their opinions and provide recommendations on the proposed topics. More specifically, following are the aspects identified as most relevant from the different LLL-HUB partners:  Assessment of the improvements recently made in legislation (e.g. related to validation of vocational knowledge, skills and competences acquired as a result of non-formal and informal learning, implementation of ECVET, quality of VET) as well as improvements in legislation proposed (Bulgaria).

To experience how one theme can be looked at from different perspectives based on the sector the experts came from. But at the end, their differences in opinion were relatively low since they could, apparently, relate to the perspectives from other experts. (Belgium)  Having really all experts in the room from the perspective of the providers of education, and organisations involved in education, formal, non-formal and informal (The Netherlands).  The FORUM gave the opportunity to conduct a discussion joining actors representing institutions of every level – from the bottom to the top: training institutions-higher education representatives – local authorities – national authorities – European Commission (Poland).  Succeeding to collect relevant contributions of all involved experts, in order to better understand the actual state of the art of LLL (Portugal).  The perspectives of NGOs from the public side. Their perspectives brought very different experience to our focus. To listen to their opinions, their comments on lifelong learningwas most interesting for us. They explained how they work in terms of lifelong learning, what they think about current activities and how they want to develop futureplans. Since it was so interesting, we decided to set up an online social platform to discuss these perspectives (Turkey).  To find different points of views about the topics discussed and concrete recommendations to improve lifelong learning in the country/region (Spain). Here is what I missed most in this FORUM (based on the discussions that were held): Overall, all partners are satisfied with their FORUMS. Nevertheless, there are few aspects that should have been addressed further or in a better way, aspects that partners will consider in greater detail for any future events of this format. These include the following:  How to involve in structured discussions with high level policy experts and decision makers at national level? It might have been easier if the National State of Play is used as a basis. (Bulgaria)  Securing the presence of experts coming from the Public Employment Service and economic sectors (Belgium)  Ensuring greater input from the world of work, representatives to be involved in the next FORUMS (Netherland)  More specific references to the actual outcomes of the research. The participants talked about issues that were important to them not necessarily referring to the details of the research.(Poland)  Unfortunately IEFP (national institute for employment and training) did not collaborate in these works, although invited (Portugal)  At the end it was not possible to break political-administrative frontiers existing in the country (Spain)  To reach even more different target groups. We could invite different sectors to the FORUM: for example; both small and middle sized companies, different kind of NGO’s.

Summary of the questionnaires for participants Please summarize the results of the questionnaires your experts filled in at the end of the FORUM. Please also keep the hard-copy trainer reports, in case we need them. Feel free to add additional remarks your experts made but were not included in the questionnaire. ORGANISATION OF THE FORUM 

  

Almost all experts in all countries have highly appreciated all aspects of the FORUMS’ organisation with comments for improvement mainly related to the duration and structure of the meetings. The most successful aspect is related to the mixture of experts and providing the possibility to exchange good practices, ideas and experiences. Common areas of improvement involve: duration of the discussions/debates and involvement of the employers and business sector in general. A general comment is that these type of events should be regularly organised.

In Bulgaria, most of the experts gave the highest level (5) for the location of venue, the room, the agenda and structure of meeting, organisation of exchanges and debates, whereas 7 have given 4 to the duration of the event. Taking into account the comments, provided during and at the end of the FORUM, that the duration should be longer, the slightly lower evaluation of this issue in the questionnaire is related with expectation to have more time for discussions. The most successful aspects are the following: - Participation of representatives of different stakeholders in the discussions; - The opportunities ensured for exchange of information, ideas, experience; - Participation of experts with different experience and expertise – the themes were discussed from different points of view, which increased the value of discussions and their usefulness for participants; - The fact that the discussions were held in sessions was very good, the discussions were useful, productive and fulfilled their objectives; - The topics selected for discussion were important for LLL development in the country; - The discussions were well organized and moderated; - The exchange of information about existing problems contributed to discussion of possible solutions; - The systematization of information in the State of Play is very useful for all, not everybody knows everything about achievements in the field of LLL; - The recommendations defined in the National State of Play were god basis for discussions; - The possibility to discuss in small groups. And the potential areas for improvement include: - Involvement of more municipalities – the information presented and the issues discussed are of interest for municipalities; - More participants to be involved, the FORUM was very useful; - The business was not enough represented, it is an important stakeholder in LLL; - Representatives of cultural organizations and community centres could be invited; - The duration should be longer in order to have opportunity for discussing solutions to existing problems.

In Belgium, all respondents gave the venue and the room a score from 3/5 to 5/5 so we can state that they were satisfied with the location of the FORUM. Similar applies for the organisation of exchanges and debates, where 50% selected the ‘3 out of 5’ box. As regards the duration and agenda and structure of the meeting, opinions differ for these items. Namely, for the duration aspect, 25% of the respondents gave a 2 out of 5, 25% gave a 3 out of 5, 25% gave a 4 out of 5 and the final 25% gave a 5 out of 5. Opinions differ for this item. Similarly, for the agenda and structure of the meeting, 25% of the respondents gave a 2 out of 5, 25% gave a 3 out of 5 and 50% gave a 4 out of 5. Opinions differ for this item. The most successful aspect: Mixture of people/fields of expertise, the jump into discussion, a minimum of presentation, the exchange of ideas, the overall consensus on the priorities in LLL policy, informal setting. What could have been improved?: exchange of data and information in preparation of the discussion which could have been more productive and less time consuming than starting from scratch, more time and more focus on a limited number of questions, absence of the labour market, and reachability of the venue. In Netherlands and Poland, the summarized results from the participants’ evaluations demonstrate high level of satisfaction with all aspects of organisation of the FORUM: Location of venue, room 4-5 Room 4-5 Duration, Agenda/structure 4 Organisation of exchanges and debates 4-5 The most successful aspects of the Polish FORUM: Very practical workshops, venue very convenient, convenient time for the meeting – allowing to get on time without a rush, well organised, well moderated, interesting speakers, interesting information materials, data research materials, taking down notes during the workshop and showing them on the big screen. For the Netherlands, the exchange of ideas, in general. Areas for improvement in Netherlands include best practices, about with is needed for LLL, more participating by employers’ organisations, whereas in Poland: Meeting too short to be able to discuss issues in detail (especially during panel not enough time for participants to express their opinions). Workshop number 1 – the subject of validation of qualifications less applicable to language schools, but still very important to LLL. The results for Portugal, adds to the general finding that the FORUMS were successfully organised, as this aspect, Organisation of the FORUM, was assessed with an average score of 4.6. As regards Spain, the most successful aspects include the following: different points of view, well structured, active participation, sharing of experiences, and different expert profiles. Valuable recommendations as well. The less successful aspects relate to short time, and need to be sustainable. CONTENT OF THE FORUM AND INTEREST REGARDING THE ISSUES IN LLL POLICY AND PRACTICES The content of the FORUM was assessed from average to good (e.g. in the case of Belgium) to very good (like in the case of Bulgaria were almost maximum score of 5 was reached, and the lowest score was 4.83). Thus, most of the participants found the content of the FORUM and interest regarding the

issues in LLL policy and practices as good. Several aspects needs to be addressed further, as suggested by the participants themselves: 

The desk research is valuable, but it needs to be broader as it does not provide the whole picture yet (Netherlands). Similar comments are recorded from the Polish participants: “The collected materials are surely very valuable, however the issues presented were rather general and too obvious (which is good for other reasons). Maybe the written material contains more original issues – looks well-prepared and comprehensive report, but systematic solutions weren’t fully covered” Good coverage of LLL issues was demonstrated. Nevertheless, in the case of Netherlands, the opinion is that the scope should include more employers, the demand side and the overall labour market. The comments of Polish experts are in line with this finding as well. Summarized, the opinion stresses the importance of achieving educational goals, and convincing employers about the importance of selecting the right training service provider and about the benefits of it (being a company that takes care of vocational development of its employees) – how it increases competitiveness on the labour market.

Bulgaria The desk research is valuable FORUM set a few interesting points Good coverage of LLL-issues FORUM is innovative Sharing a new way about the LLL issues Discussing with new valuable professionals For me it was profitable

4.932 4.93 4.83 4.9 4.93 5 4.93

Belgium I think that the expert panel enabled us to set a few interesting point about LLL issues. I think that the topics explored provided a good coverage of LLL issues. The majority of participants agreed with the statements.

I found the expert panel innovative: The majority of participants did not agree with the statement.


(1 "very poor" … 5 "excellent" or 1 "totally disagree" … 5 "totally agree")

I think the expert panel helped me to share ideas about lifelong learning issues in an innovative way: most of the participants answered ‘average’ on this question.

I think the expert panel helped me to discuss lifelong learning issues with new professionals. As a whole, I found the expert panel profitable for me as a professional. Most of the participants agreed with these statements.

Netherlands The desk research is valuable FORUM set a few interesting points Good coverage of LLL-issues Sharing a new way about the LLL issues Discussing with new valuable professionals For me it was profitable

4 4 3-4 3-4 4 4

Portugal - Content of the FORUM and interest regarding the issues in LLL policy and practices – average score of 4.4.

Poland The desk research is valuable FORUM set a few interesting points Sharing a new way about the LLL issues Discussing with new valuable professionals For me it was profitable

4-5 4-5 4 4-5 4-5

HOW TO GO FURTHER? I could envisage the following actions in my region/territory/Institution to propagate the outcomes of the FORUM and continue to participate actively in the LLL-Hub project: Bulgaria  To use the information gained and results of the FORUM in planned to be developed Strategy for Adult Qualification Motivation;  Providing information about FORUM content and results in my institution/organization network/on the territory of my region;  To stimulate organization of such FORUMS at regional level;  Working “in the field” for implementation of what I leaned in my work in the organization;  To form a working group for monitoring the implementation of Regional LLL strategy Belgium  My organization has to make a management plan for the next five years. Some of the elements of the expert debate will be incorporated in this plan.  Visibility on web and other media  EVC policy in collaboration with the industry  Analysis of good practice  Exchange and panel discussion with training officers in companies  The (intermediate) outcomes could be shared with the VLOR -RaadLLL that is preparing a policy advice for the Flemish government. Netherlands  Involve labour market parties and representatives of them  Work out the idea of having also regional platforms  Elaborate the results of the FORUM for proposals to have Platform(s) – goals, member  And use a multi-perspective dialogue with all stakeholders, and share information on the situation in other countries. Poland  Regarding learning/teaching foreign languages – discussing adult activation methods in LLL during the PASE meeting (www.pase.pl), as well as with local community and people involved in training (Cultural Centre “DworekBiałoprądnicki”)  Passing the strategies/methods developed in the LLL-HUB project to our customers and their families

        

Involving local and social initiatives Disseminating current information/research findings from different countries on the LLL-HUB website and exchanging information Promotion of the LLL-HUB project Individualised approach towards individual recipients 50+ activation measures Popularisation of validation of the learning outcomes Spreading information about LLL initiatives Getting involved in promotional campaign about LLL Getting to know good practices described in the research material (very comprehensive analysis of experts’ surveys)

MOST INTERESTING Bulgaria: - Discussion of topics from different points of view; - The information gained and the content of discussions; - Achievements of colleagues in the field of LLL, the challenges they face, the way they solve problems; - High level of participants’ expertise; - Establishing new contacts with other experts in the field; - The Recommendations defined in the state of Play and the recommendations defined by the FORUM; - The system approach to the LLL topics implemented during the FORUM; - The scope of information provided and exchanged during the FORUM was broad and valuable; - As a whole the FORUM inspired me and gave me ideas how to improve my work in the field of LLL; - The opportunity to exchange information, experience, good practices; - The FORUM was practically oriented. Belgium: - Exchange of different ideas, crossing of different perspectives/expertise - Balance formal and informal + academic views - Sharing knowledge and expertise with experts in different fields of LLL and education. It broadened my perspective on what the trends (of thought) are for the upcoming years. As my organisation is focused on more informal learning processes, this expert panel was an interesting moment to redefine my organizations everyday practice. - The debate on the value of social & cultural organisation in LLL as a whole. Netherlands: - Connection between sustainability and LLL - The NLQF is really important for transparency… - Also it was good to hear all points of view, as result of the small group discussions - And that it is a matter of demand, to offer education needed for the labour market - A Platform on LLL can be helpful for having LLL more on the agenda in this way. Poland:

- Presentation about EFS perspective for 2014-2020 - Various actions taken in different partner countries - Legal and organisational issues concerning LLL – topic mentioned by Mrs Marcińska (representative of Ministry of Social Policy and Labour) – I wish for it to be discussed in more detail - Workshops – very constructive, meaningful due to the question posed at the beginning “Are we going in the right direction?Also due to reflection: what to do next? – Validation standards, taking into account validation in the evaluation of OP Human Capital - Exchange of opinions, experience among the FORUM participants - A chance to share the experience with others - Presentations of guests – helped to see how others deal with the topic - Very inspiring speech of Mrs Pravelska-Skrzypek - Information about the LLL-HUB project – how it is implemented in different partner countries MISSED MOST Bulgaria: - The time was not enough; - Employers were not enough represented; - I am satisfied with everything. Belgium: - Very broad and complex issues versus a limited time - Views of the labour market - The so called "state of the play" is ignoring crucial documents with respect to the debate on LLL in Flanders. See e.g. the strategic policy exploration ordered by the VLOR and published in 2014. If this input had been available further steps in the reflection and discussion could have produced more innovative ideas then what was now a repetition and confirmation of what was already known. - Participation of partners of public training organisations for unemployed (VDAB) and self-employed (SyntraVlaanderen). - Main providers of non-formal education - Absence of SYNTRA & VDAB Netherlands: The input from the world of work. OTHER COMMENTS: - The FORUM was perfectly organized (Bulgaria) - We could get benefits of the FORUM initiative creating network communities of learners, trainers and stakeholders, about what is the advantages of learning with all experiences of life (Portugal). - I want to learn from other countries…The government has its focus on formal education, so, work to be done, for a broader scope (Netherlands).

Conclusions and recommendations Please write down a few conclusions and recommendations you as organising partner have. Based on the individual FORUMS’ reports it can be concluded that the events have achieved their objectives and overall can be regarded as successful. Following are the main conclusions and recommendations for each FORUM held in the six partner countries: Bulgaria – The evaluation shows that the FORUM has reached the objectives defined within the project. The proposals made for organizing regular FORUMS at national and regional level is additional evidence that the format of discussions implemented was adequate. Information about the FORUM was published in printed and electronic media resulting in numerous inquiries and requests to send the final version of the National State of Play to many institutions, organizations and experts in the field of LLL. This is additional evidence about usefulness of the work done in the frame of the project and the quality of the event. The composition of participants was also assessed well. The proposals made about broadening the scope by involvement of employers and cultural institutions3 will be taken into consideration in thefuture work of the Bulgarian partners. Concerning the duration, the participants agreed that the time was not sufficient, so this should be discussed by project partners when finalizing the FORUM Methodology, as a project product which could be exploited in the future. Belgium - CVO, as organiser, is very pleased with what they have achieved by organising the Flemish FORUM. A fresh wind now goes through the Flemish LLL landscape. It is now up to CVO and other stakeholders to keep the topic ‘warm’ so we feel there should be some kind of follow-up sessions. Netherlands - Leido is satisfied with the FORUM, overall, the outcomes and recommendations – and with all critical comments – and the suggestions, most of them with the focus on involving the employers. The outcomes are the basis for starting-up in 2016 the National Platform on LLL. The Ministry of Education is willing to have this initiative incorporated in the next strategy on LLL. So, the most important conclusion is that this project is helping the stakeholders to reach some important goals. They will, however, need to involve the world of work in coming activities. The National Platform on LLL will foster individual approach as well as promote the use of NLQF. For the next FORUM, efforts will be made for greater general publicity and involving wider audience, making it possible for others – maybe not a real expert yet – to participate and to learn about the project and Leido’s goals. Poland - The public part – „Strategic panel” was a very good idea as it gave a possibility for participants (training institutions) to ask questions directly to the representatives of authorities/policymakers (including EU Commission), however more time should be allowed for it. Regarding the workshops, the experts were divided in two groups, each discussing two topics. It


They did not participate not because they were not invited but because they were not available at the time the FORUM was held, which was accepted by the other participants

would be better to have 4 groups discussing 1 topic each, and additionally make the experts switch places during workshops so as to let them respond to every topic. Portugal – The overall work is assessed as successful due to the good team work, and excellent results of groups’ interaction of the groups. It was well recognized by all that different perspectives like items such as “intergenerational” and “networking to other projects” are very important and justifies the continuity of a project like LLL-HUB. It was recommended to ensure the sustainability of the strategy to implement in the country and strengthen the local actions of proximity, providing answers that permit people in the territories, involving policy makers and leading them to share new ways about the LLL issues. The Education and Training pathways/programs shall be adjusted to the needs of labour market and the adjustments should have the involvement of political actors and stakeholders especially employers, higher education and especially in vocational education and training. Recognition of prior learning and vocational guidance are key. Public policies should envisage the needs of two types of unemployed workers: graduates entering the labour market and long term unemployed workers that are less educated and qualified. Access to guidance should be provided at the public level. The age limit should also be reconsidered in today’s socio-economic contexts. Spain - The time was a bit short to discuss all the topics in a morning session. In Spain, to make a full journey session is not a solution but it could be done organizing the FORUM in two morning sessions. The experts’ contribution was the most valuable aspect in the FORUM. Recommendations are valuables, but must be integrated into different fields. Turkey - The FORUM was organized with very successful collaboration between groups. The results and recommendations were as we expected since the different focus groups gave us very clear perspectives. Also, we gained perfect experience after that FORUM. Although there were many problems in Mardin, the results of the FORUM were very successful. We think that we can improve activities and contribute to lifelong learning due to the awareness we raised with this FORUM. Participants will reach to their social and family environments and local media reported about this FORUM.

What were, according to you, the main outcomes of your FORUM? Two common main outcomes of the FORUMS, as recognised by all partners, are the policy recommendations and experts involvement as a start for a long-term cooperation platform in the field at national/regional level. Specifically, following key outcomes were emphasized by the partners: Bulgaria - All participants gained an overall systematized picture about LLL state of play in the country. - The FORUM created an opportunity for experts to exchange information, good practices, and experience and established contacts for future cooperation.



The FORUM confirmed that the content of the National Report on LLL State of Play adequately presents the situation in the country and that the Recommendations defined in it correspond to the main challenges faced in the process of LLL policy development and implementation. The recommendations defined at the FORUM enrich those included in the National State of Play.

Belgium - Definition of LLL = lifelong and life wide learning focus on employability; - Goal = 15% participation in LLL 6,8% (Flanders Outlook 2013), but a lot of learning activities ≠ in statistics and invisible:learning in socio- cultural organisations, training organised by economic sectors, statistics Eurostat = 25-64 year  25% of second chance learners in adult education < 25; - Fragmentation sector of LLL in Flanders: departments of education, culture and employment  coordinated vision policy on LLL and cooperation between different policy departments  more proactive policy on LLL = advisable; - Policy on EVC/EVQ is inadequate  national and European framework = advisable; - Validation of competences  HRM culture depending on diploma’s, certificates; - Obstacles for a learner centred orientation:legislation and financing mechanisms in adult education = financing of programs and group learning, flexible programs for learners, custommade programs in cooperation in with economic sectors; - Programs in socio-cultural organisations can be more flexible but competences are not recognized - Provisions for disadvantaged groups = sufficient, but need for:flexible custom-made programs and initiatives for activation, more practice-based programs, in-service training, dual learning programs, services for learning advisory for adults, and activation of learning in social services, health services, employment services; - Reform of existing incentives for learners  time to learn! - Partnerships are necessary  fragmentation of LLL sector in Flanders: cooperation and partnerships exist, but are hindered by policy on subsidies and legislative rules of different departments (education – culture – employment), best practices = bottom up initiatives based on regional needs, and partnership can be stimulated by co-location; - Several initiatives in Flanders on LLL and building partnerships but all of them disappeared to quick! Flanders needs: a new vision on learning based on an analysis of what kind of learning our society really needs, subsidies should be allocated according to needs of these environmental analyses, a sustained communication plan on LLL ( in the past: Life learning week), and a LLLfocus in every policy department (employment, social welfare, education,…). Netherlands The recommendations made to address the Ministry of Education are highly important as this organisation is the most crucial stakeholders when it comes to the improvements in the addressed area of lifelong learning. Portugal The main outcomes are the key recommendations that include the following: - Increase the discussion at the political and “operational”/organizational level in order to promote more involvement of the community;


Promote the sharing of knowledge, practices and meanings by using platforms and fostering communities of practice; Reinforce the recognition of prior learning and extend the age of access to training; Provide the needs of unemployed young graduates who cannot find work, the low-skilled unemployed and the graduates long-term unemployed age up 35 and to do the adjustment of training to market needs for this people; Provide mixed solutions to more adults in middle age to improve education, otherwise in two decades people are still in market without qualifications; Continue to improve LLL with flexible pathways with the involvement of political actors and stakeholders especially employers, higher education and vocational education and training and also in providing the training of trainers and teachers constant adaptation of the new realities; Introduce partnership between regional authorities (CIM) and national authorities focus in reduce the deficit qualification and certification of local people and promoting their employability; Recognize the need for increased social skills on young people and promote LLL in formal, informal and non-formal settings, from childhood; Assure the recognition of policy makers and businesses of the importance of promoting training in the workplace more closely, so that young people or adult learners can have a proper training and a tutor to assist them in their training. Open up education through new technologies and promote the acquisition and development of skills throughout life recognizing the benefits for the employability, competitiveness and innovation in Portugal.






Spain The main outcomes of the Spanish held FORUM includes the policy recommendations and experts’ involvement in the discussions and shaping these recommendations. Turkey We were able to add new perspectives to the Turkish state of play and raised awareness on lifelong learning in Mardin.


Rate the overall impact of your FORUM on lifelong learning policy in your region/country (1 "very poor" … to 10 "excellent"). 2





6.5 х





Explain why you selected this grade: The average score of the overall impact of the organised FORUMS in the different countries is 6.5. The individual scores ranged from 4 to 9, and all partners agree on two main issues: first, that having such a FORUM organised in the country/region is a success of its own, and second, the results are yet to be seen as this is just one step further. Specifically, following are the views of the partners on the FORUMS’ impact:

 

 

 

In Bulgaria, the partners believe that the discussions could be led better in order to extract more from the participants. In Belgium, at this stage of the project it is difficult to notice any kind of impact on general policy as the experts were brought together only once i.e. during the FORUM. The project is expected to contribute to the creating awareness and long-term impact on policy. In the Netherlands, the partner is looking forward for the next steps that among other includes the next FORUM and then the Agora. In Poland, the FORUM helped to make a good step towards further development of LLL policy in the region/country through collecting and thematically arranging the knowledge on the regional state of play together with the comments, recommendations from various actors of LLL area. It helped to see if the players are going in the right direction. The presence of the EU Commission and Ministry of Labour and Social Policy representatives gave a chance for a grassroots level actors to exchange views with the decision-makers. In Portugal, the impact of the FORUM was only recognized by their partners and in a local level, although the dissemination was achieved by social media and APG’s communication own means. And, as stated by the Spanish partner, at this stage the results and expected impact is yet to be seen.


Annex 1 – LLL-HUB FORUMS: Schedules of the day The schedules of the individual LLL-HUB FORUMS are presented below. LLL-HUB FORUM Bulgaria, 27.03.2015 9:00 – 9:20 Opening and presentation of participants Explanation of FORUM’s objectives Ludmil Kovachev 9:20 – 9:30 Greetings by the Governor of Blagoevgrad region 9:30 – 9:40 Presentation of the LLL-HUB project Nadezhda Kamburova 9:40 – 10:10 Presentation of the National Report on LLL State of Play in Bulgaria Nadezhda Kamburova 10:10 – 10:40 Coffee break 10:40 – 11:30 Session 1 – National Frameworks for lifelong learning: towards flexible pathways and comprehensive education and training systems Discussion on strategic and legislative basis in the field of LLL in the country and its implementation in practice from the standpoint of:  coherence with common European LLL polices;  progress achieved and challenges faced in implementation of European frameworks, European Qualifications framework(EQ), Key Competences Framework, ECTS, ECVET, Validation of non-formal and informal learning, Quality assurance (EQAVET…) 11:30 – 11:45 Break 11:45 – 12:30 Session 2 – Lifelong learning actors: taking the jump towards learner-centred systems Discussion of LLL state of play from the standpoint of:  qualification of the specialists ensuring all aspects of system’s functioning;  ensuring integration of groups with specific social status;  ensuring the link between education and training and the labour market needs and requirements;  ensuring implementation of various innovative forms of training. 12:30 – 13:30 Lunch 13:30 - 14:15 Session 3 – Partnerships and shared responsibility in development of LLL policies and practices Discussion on:  the existing in the country partnership mechanisms between stakeholders achievements, challenges proposals for improvement;  the issues related to funding of education and training – opportunities and challenges with respect to sharing expenditures;  possibilities for broader popularization of successful partnerships. 14:15 – 14:30 Break 14:30 – 15:00 Session 4 – Policy recommendations with respect to achievement of better

15:00 – 15:30 15:30

results in LLL at national level Plenary session – presentation of group discussions Closing

LLL-HUB FORUM Poland, 13.04.2015 9:30 – 10:00 Registration of participants, welcome coffee 10:00 – 10:15 Welcome and introduction to the meeting of Experts FORUM - Andrzej Martynuska, Regional Labour Office in Krakow 10:15 – 11:00 Strategic Panel "Poland-Malopolska - evaluation of the implementation of the Europe 2020 Strategy in the area of adult learning" - as it involved the representatives of Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, European Commission, EUCIS-LLL, academic community – it gave a chance for an grassroots level actors to exchange views with the decision-makers; 11:00 – 12:00 Presentation of the research results on the implementation of the Europe 2020 Strategy in the LLL area on the example of Malopolska region 12:00 – 12:15 Coffee break 12:15 – 14:00 Recommendations for the European Commission on the further implementation of the Europe 2020 Strategy in the area of adult learning in Poland – discussion of experts of Malopolska Partnership for Lifelong Learning  Session 1: National Frameworks for lifelong learning - an approach focused on learning outcomes (recognition and validation of non-formal and informal learning).  Session 2: Lifelong learning actors: learner-centred systems (European Agenda for Adult Education, participation of adults in lifelong learning).  Session 3: LLL Paths - Towards a relevant educational provision (links between education and the labour market).  Session 4: LLL Communities – an authentic partnership and shared responsibility (eliminating barriers between sectors and actors). 14:00 – 14:30 Lunch 14:30 – 16:00 Presentation of the recommendations and guidelines formulated in the course of FORUM on the implementation of the Europe 2020 Strategy in LLL area in Malopolska in preparation for Agora 2016 in Brussels. 16:00 – 16:15 Closing session, Małgorzata Dudziak, Regional Labour Office in Krakow

LLL-HUB FORUM Portugal, 13.04.2015 Two groups of 4 experts were formed to achieve the goals defined in the FORUM methodology, each one with a moderator, which made a brief presentation of the purposes and aims of the project, as well as the methodology that was to be followed in each group session. After having highlighted its main aim, which was to discuss four key-topics concerning LLL, the moderator in each group defined the procedure that was to be followed. It was explained that the four topics had been previously handed out to the four team members, and each member had

been assigned to prepare an initial presentation of one of the topics, i.e., to start the discussion about that topic. Adding that the first three topics were to be discussed by the “Group 2” (team members and attendees) and the fourth topic would be discussed by both groups (Groups 1 and 2). The time established for the discussion of each topic was 45 minutes. Thus, the procedure carried out in the session was the following: the moderator presented each topic and the team member assigned for that topic opened the discussion with a short comment and/or reflection about the topic. Then the moderator gave the floor to the rest of the team members, by order of presentation of each topic, in order to broad the discussion, and, lastly, collect conclusions and recommendations. The topics and schedule of the day was as follows: 11:30 National Frameworks for Lifelong Learning: towards flexible pathways and comprehensive education and training systems 12:15 Lifelong Learning actors: taking the jump towards learner-centred systems 14:30 Lifelong Learning communities: partnerships and shared responsibility 15:15 Policy recommendations to improve the implementation of Lifelong Learning GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR RAPPORTEUR I. CONTRIBUTE TO FURTHER THE GOAL OF THE PROJECT, AND IN PARTICULAR IN PERSPECTIVE: a. learning time; b. promote this learning methodology; c. collective reflection foreseeing the future. II. STRUCTURE, FILLING THE DOCUMENT III. CLOSE COLLABORATION WITH MODERATORS

LLL-HUB FORUM Belgium, 11.05.2015 9:30 – 9:45 Welcomeby Prof. Dr. Koen DePryck – general director Scholengroep 1 Antwerpen 9:45 – 10:00 LLL-HUB by Hannelore Audenaert – head of project office CVO Antwerpen 10:00 – 11:00 Lifelong learning in Flanders, policy and practices (2 groups)  Recognition and validation of non-formal and informal learning  Integration if migrants through lifelong learning  Link between education and the labour market Discussions were based on the following information: Theme 1: towards flexible pathways and comprehensive education and training systems  Central questions  Culture of LLL in Flanders?  Flemish policy objectives and supporting measurement?

   

11:00 – 11:20 11:20 – 12:20

Where do we situate formal, non-formal and informal learning? EVC/EVK and mobility between different training methods? Implementation of and familiarity with European Framework of Reference? From desk research  Pact 2020: 15 % participation in LLL vs. 6,8% participation in 2012  Description of formal, non-formal and informal education  Attention for EVC/EVK with initiatives such as ‘experience certificate’ and ‘oscar’, but are they sustainable?  Flemish qualification structure  Best practise: OSCAR (http://www.socius.be/Oscar)

Theme 2: LLL-actors: taking the jump towards learner-centred systems  Central questions  Is there enough training offer for the disadvantaged (low-skilled, people with a migration background, unqualified youth)  Is the offer accessible? Flexible? Adjusted to specific needs?  From desk research  PIACC: weak scores on problem solving skills in high-tech surroundings + gap between high and low-skilled  In education: difference between those who achieve good grades and those who achieve low grades  Unqualified flow + possibilities to achieve a diploma secondary education at a later age (central exam commission – second chance to learn)  Best practices: second chance to learn for bpost – Lerenwerkt! (=Learning Works! (http://www.lerenwerkt.org/) Coffee break Shared responsibilities and policy recommendations (2 groups) Discussions were based on the following information: Theme 3: Lifelong learning communities: partnerships and shared responsibility Theme 4: Policy recommendations to improve the implementation of lifelong learning  Central questions  Which barriers are there to increase participation in LLL in Flanders?  Which barriers are there to facilitate the flow between the different LLL providers in Flanders?  What can we undertake to strengthen a culture of LLL in Flanders?  What can wedo ourselves?  Where do we need policy measurements?  From desk research  In the past: regional consultation structures: edufora/DIVA/ consortia for adult education providers  OKOT trajectories VDAB/CVO’s – programs VDAB/basic education within the framework of the plan for literacy


Lunch + presentation of the main findings

LLL-HUB FORUM Spain, 13.05.2015 PLENARY SESSION 1 9:00 – 9:15 Participants arrival 9:15 – 9:20 Welcome words Mr. Jorge M. Prieto Ballester – Cáceres Chamber. General Manager 9:20 – 9:30 Experts presentation Mr. Jesús Espinosa Redondo – Cáceres Chamber. Project Assistant 9:30 – 9:45 Presentation of LLL-HUB Ms. Ulla-Alexandra Mattl – Eucis-LLL. Project Officer 9:45 – 10:00 Lifelong Learning: always learning. The PT experience Mr. Etelberto Lopes da Costa – Mr. Luis Cara D´Anjo – Associação Portuguesa de Gestão das Pessoas 10:00 – 10:00 Presentation of the State of Play Mr. Raúl Iglesias Durán – Cáceres Chamber. Project Manager EXPERT SESSIONS 10:15 – 11:00 Session 1 - National Frameworks for lifelong learning: towards flexible pathways and comprehensive education and training systems. 11:00 – 11:30 Coffee break 11:30 – 12:15 Session 2 - Lifelong learning actors: taking the jump towards learner-centred systems 12:15 – 13:00 Session 3 - Lifelong learning communities: partnerships and shared responsibility 13:00 – 13:45 Session 4 - Policy recommendations to improve the implementation of lifelong learning (previous sessions outcomes) PLENARY SESSION 2 13:45 – 14:15 FINAL SESSION - Presentation of main findings Group rapporteurs 14:15 Lunch

LLL-HUB FORUM Netherlands, 28.05.2015 9:30 – 10:00 Ontvangst 10:00 – 10:05 Opening, toelichting op de bijeenkomst: doelstellingen 10:05 – 10:40 Inleiding over het Hoger Bedrijfsdiploma - Waarom het HBd - Wat is het HBd - Wat is de positie van het HBd binnen het aanbod aan scholingstrajecten - Wat zijn de belangrijkste doelgroepen - Wat is de wijze waarop het HBd wordt geborgd door het werkveld en andere organisaties - Wat zijn internationale ontwikkelingen rond EQF-level 5 10:40 – 11:10 Eerste ronde reacties hierop van de aanwezigen

- Bruikbaarheid - Hoe in te passen binnen het huidige scholingsaanbod - HBden NLQF-niveau 5 11:10 – 11:20 Pauze 11:20 – 11:40 Inleiding over HBd en levenlang leren - Flexibilisering van leerwegen - Alternatief van de Associatedegree - Inbedding van het HBd in Regionaal Associate Colleges - Post-mbo / HBd / Ad 11.40 – 12.20 Tweede ronde reacties, aan de hand van stellingen - Rol van de overheid – strategie LLL – flexibilisering - Aanbieders (privaat): mbo-instellingen, hogescholen, andere partijen - Hoe mee te nemen in de communicatie 12.20 – 12.30 Trekken van conclusies en afsluiting Lunch (voor degenen die daarvoor tijd hebben dan wel die middag ook aanwezig zijn) 13.00 – 13.30 13.30 – 13.40 13.40 – 13.50 13.50 – 14.05 14.05 – 14.15 14.15 – 14.40 14.40 – 15.05 15.05 – 15.20 15.20 – 15.45 15.45 – 16.10 16.10 – 16.30 16.30 – 16.40 16.40 – 16.45

Ontvangstenregistratie Opening en welkom + toelichting op de doelstellingen voor deze bijeenkomst Informatie over het project LLL-HUB, relevant voor dit LLL-FORUM Inleiding over de belangrijkste bevindingen, met betrekking tot de ‘State of Play’ betreffende LLL in Nederland Toelichting op de werkwijze betreffende de vier sessies, in kleine groepen ** Sessie 1 Sessie 2 Pauze Sessie 3 Sessie 4 Inventarisatie van de belangrijkste uitkomsten per sessie (rapportage door de verslagleggers, vanuit Leido) Invullen individueel rapportage-formulier per deelnemer Afsluiting van dit LLL-FORUM

LLL-HUB FORUM Turkey, 11.11.2015 9:30 – Hayat BoyuÖğrenmeUlusalRaporSunumu 10:30 10:45 – Türkiye’dekiKurumların Hayat BoyuÖğrenmeDeneyimi: UygulamalarınDeğerlendirilmesi 12:00 13:30 – SEANSLAR 16:30 Seans HayatboyuÖğrenmeninUlusalÇerçevesi: Eğitim-ÖğretimSistemleri 1 Seans HayatboyuÖğrenmeninAktörleri: ÖğreniciMerkezliSistemlereDoğru

2 Seans HayatboyuÖğrenmeToplulukları: OrtaklarvePaylaşılanSorumluluk 3 Seans HayatboyuÖğrenmeninUygulanmasınınGeliştirilmesineYönelikPolitikTavsiyeler 4

Annex 2 – LLL-HUB FORUMS: Lists of participants


Country: SPAIN