Quality Assurance in VET in Montenegro

Quality assurance in VET in Montenegro, Zeljko Raicevic, Head of Evaluation Department, VET Centre Montenegro Margareta Nikolovska, ETF FINAL DRAFT

Introduction

VET reform in Montenegro relies on the premise that the VET system should provide broad- based education that not only covers vocational skills and knowledge but also offers access to further and higher education and good opportunities for personal development and social integration.1 The question of quality in VET is an essential element in these system processes. Applying effective quality assurance policies helps to develop trust between labour market partners and VET providers. Without this trust, progress towards enhanced relevance and attractiveness of VET will be next to impossible. The issue is also highlighted by the drive within EU countries for higher quality in VET related to the Lisbon Strategy, the related Education and Training 2020 agenda, and the Copenhagen/Bruges Process.

The following chapter discusses the Montenegro experience in introducing Quality Assurance policies in VET. It reflects on the impact that external and internal evaluation can have, and the contribution they make in improving school performance. Therefore, the chapter examines these main issues:  The context and on-going reform in VET in a challenging economic environment

 The process of external and internal evaluation in VET schools and how this is implemented in VET schools

 The impact that internal evaluation has on the VET schools and what difference it can make in the performance of the VET school  The lessons learned in the process of introducing VET quality policies from both perspectives – VET school perspective and VET system perspective

The idea is to draw conclusions from the experience of Montenegro from the process to put in place explicit policies for quality assurance in VET.

Social context and on-going reform in VET: key findings of Torino Process in Montenegro

Montenegro took part in the 2012 Torino Process exercise. The ETF Torino Process analytical framework explores important dimensions of VET, one of which is related to internal efficiency and effectiveness in VET. Internal efficiency and effectiveness in VET focuses mainly on its provision in schools, colleges, faculties, company training sites, etc. It also addresses how quality at VET provider level is defined and managed. In one way or another, internal efficiency denotes how well the VET system of a country correlates with the external environment within which it operates and how well it responds to related signals or challenges.

In Montenegro, external environment is marked with social trends and challenges similar to Europe – restructuring of the economy, unemployment and in particularly youth

1 2012 Montenegro Torino Process report

1 unemployment. The global crisis affected the economic growth rate, which declined from 2.5% in 2011 to 0.2% in 2012. Tourism and real estate receives most of the foreign direct investment and services contribute to 70% of GDP. In 2012 a high share of micro and small businesses were a typical feature of the economy in which 98.6% of enterprises were micro and small companies with less than 50 employees contributing 31% of exports and 61.7% of overall employment in the economy. The main challenge is supporting the development and growth of more dynamic SMEs and for the VET system to deliver more relevant SME skills and quality training.

Montenegro’s response to the Torino process indicates encouraging developments in relation to polices to improve the quality and attainment in education.

Gross enrolment rates in upper secondary (ISCED 3) continued to rise from 80% in 2006 to 97.7% in 2012, while pre-school education enrolment rose from 27.9% in 2008 to 44.8% in 2012, partly due to the national Strategy on Early Childhood and Pre-school Education for the period 2010-2015. The nine year compulsory schooling has led to higher enrolment and completion rates in elementary education. Progress has been also achieved in improving the educational attainment of the population. The share of Montenegrins aged 15+ who have completed secondary general education stood at 76% and vocational education 39.8% (2012) while the share of those with completed HE went up from 13.4 % (2009) to 17.4% (2012). ,The share of enrolment in upper secondary VET is relatively high; it stood at 67.3% in 2012. Latest data from the Ministry of Education (MoE) suggest that the level of attractiveness in particular of the 3-year VET programmes is decreasing.

A issue is that although completion of the 4-year cycle in upper secondary VET in Montenegro allows for access to higher education, many face difficulties in completing higher education studies. The upward trend in higher education (HE) enrolments (from 25.8% in 2006 to 47.6% in 2010) continued with a 6% rise in 2010/2011 as compared to the previous academic year. However, the increase in HE enrolments contrasts with the low completion rate. The latter is more typical for the first cycle of HE studies: the number of Bachelor’s diplomas dropped by 5% in 2010 in comparison to 2009, while postgraduate diplomas increased (12% for specialist and 14% for Master degrees).

The position of VET is high on the policy agenda, and the pressure on VET system to deliver better quality training is obvious. In general, the main reasons for developing quality assurance policies in VET for Montenegro are:  For the economy to ensure growth and adequate response to the changing and restructuring challenges there is a need that upper secondary VET and the VET system as a whole are capable to address the needs of the businesses and the labour market. The context is not only Montenegrin - it is European and global context as well.  For business to be responsive to the changing and restructuring challenges of the economy and the labour market, there is a need for VET programmes to be reliable and trusted.  For the individual to have wide access to education and training opportunities, and similar access to career opportunities, there is a need to ensure that VET provides high quality teaching and learning- quality enhancement mechanisms put in place at VET school level will significantly support these objectives.

Quality in VET in focus: part of Montenegro agenda for EU integration

For Montenegro, quality in VET is becoming even more important. The European Council’s decision in December 2011 on the opening of access negotiations between Montenegro

2 and the EU, have made the need to address the challenges more pressing. Reforms carried out so far have increased compulsory schooling from 8 to 9 years, introduced new curricula and textbooks and improved school infrastructure. Vocational education, however, followed by 68% of upper secondary education students, continues to face challenges with regard to quality and responsiveness to labour market skills needs.

New policy measures and accompanying new institutions, including new modes of governance have been put in place. The implementation of new curricula in VET began in 2004 and an external evaluation as part of quality assurance process began in 2006. From 2006 until 2010 the external evaluation for all schools was performed based on Methodology for external evaluation of education of the Bureau for Education Services. A second round of external evaluation is on-going since 2010. Internal evaluation which includes and recommends schools to exercise self-evaluation as part of the internal evaluation process, has been obligatory since 2010 and it is performed according to recommended framework with qualitative and quantitative indicators.

Consistent efforts are in place to improve the quality of education. In the Strategy for the Development of Vocational Education in Montenegro 2010-2014, one of the priority areas of action is quality assurance in vocational education and training. In 2011 and 2012 Montenegro made progress to implement the provisions from its 2010 legislation - the VET schools internal evaluation has been introduced as an obligatory bi-annual exercise. External evaluation is the exercise which is carried out every 4 years and is in place in the country since 2004. The leading institution in the reform process is the Ministry of Education, with an important implementation role of the VET Centre, Examination Centre and Bureau for Education Services. Quality Assurance in VET, including external and internal evaluation – have been recognized as very important support to the management of VET schools and as an essential part of the planning and decision making process.

Montenegro Bruges/ Torino Processes report 2012 for Montenegro, emphasises that further aligning of the vocational education quality framework with the European quality assurance in vocational education and training is necessary. The European Quality Assurance Reference Framework (EQARF) is a tool developed in Europe to promote transparency and provide a common basis for quality assurance and development. At the EU level,2 the use of evaluation process is further encouraged through the EQARF. EQARF is based on the idea that evaluation is linked to the development of quality both at the VET-system level, and at the VET-school level, where the starting point is self-evaluation of VET schools. Thus it provides a systemic approach to quality, incorporating and interrelating the relevant levels and actors.

The sections below are related to VET quality assurance polices put in place where the core is evaluation in its different forms.

External evaluation and internal evaluation in VET schools in Montenegro: strategy and policy development with impact on quality in VET schools

Although evaluation within school systems is not a recent concern, it used to be limited mainly to the evaluation of students for many years. The systematic evaluation of teachers,

2 The European Commission’s Education and Culture Directorate-General (DG EAC) has established the European Network for Quality Assurance for VET (EQAVET), and, since May 2010, a European Quality Assurance Reference Framework (EQARF) for VET has been adopted as a basis for cooperation between Member States. The EQARF describes the various elements in a quality model and raises a number of key questions to be considered by the major stakeholders.

3 programs, or the school as a whole, has emerged more recently. In fact, it is still far from being common practice in education systems frequently perceived as being the most advanced (Nevo, 1998). Evaluation schemes are now increasingly being considered as potential levers of change that could assist with decision-making, resource allocation or school improvement.3

Experience of Montenegro with introduction of evaluation in the education system includes: internal evaluation of the school, preparation of the report of the internal evaluation, external evaluation process and the report from External Evaluation Team. The key idea underpinning introduction of these steps is that it is necessary to put in place provision that requires quality process at the school level, but also that processes exist at system level to provide, for the analysis of varying performance between schools, and subsequently the identification of priority areas for policy interventions.

Box 1: Quality assurance in VET: summary of the process in Montenegro

 Policy framework of quality improvement in VET in Montenegro comprises 2 processes: external evaluation and internal evaluation. There are three institutions at national level in Montenegro in charge of quality development in education: the Bureau for Educational Services, Examination Centre and the VET Centre.  Advisors of the VET Centre evaluate the work of the VET schools, teaching and training and on the basis of recommendations the schools plan the process of quality improvement.  There is an Evaluation Department within the VET Centre. The Evaluation Department, in compliance with General Law on Education and Rulebook on the Content, Form and Manner of Identifying Quality of Teaching and Education, visits schools once in 4 years. On the basis of the methodology for external evaluation of quality, advisors of the VET Centre estimates the achievement of standards in key work areas of schools and prepare reports. The report comprises a description of the situation and recommendations for quality improvement.  The VET school, on the basis of identified situation and recommendations elaborated in the external evaluation, prepares the Plan for quality improvement for the period of four years. The report is submitted to the Ministry of Education and Science and Educational Inspection. In the period of four years, depending on the need, external identification of the implementation of activities is conducted from the Plan for quality improvement.

Significant changes in the quality assurance processes in education system in Montenegro with impact on schools started back in 2004. The Montenegrin educational authorities used to have inspection services, which supervised school processes in accordance with the characteristics of the former system of social and educational organisation. However, the primary role of inspection was to control the ways in which laws and regulations were applied, the teaching process was performed and the records which were maintained. In large part it had an administrative emphasis. Since 2004, the new quality framework has gradually introduced external and internal evaluation. For the first time the education authorities and schools have been faced with two new processes, where the key element is “evaluation” and the possibility to measure the quality of education services delivered. Common challenge in this situation is meeting needs for information at the level of the 3 Faubert, V.(2009), “School evaluation: Current practices in OECD Countries and a Literature Review”, OECD Education Working Papers

4 system in order to monitor the performance. At school level the challenge is to align the external evaluation with internal evaluation, ensure transparent and well balanced reporting on the VET school performance, including using findings of the processes for ensuring improvements in the school performance, therefore imporving the quality.

At the beginning of the reform, synergy has been achieved between secondary education and upper secondary VET, meaning that the quality assurance processes were the same, and there was no differentiation between VET schools and general secondary schools. Certainly this had some advantages and some disadvantages. The General Law on Education, The Law on Vocational Education and The Law on Adult Education define the obligations, responsibilities and dynamics of quality assurance activities. Besides this, laws and sub (ie, secondary) legislation define quality standards required for curricula and teachers standards. The Bureau for Education Services, the Centre for Vocational Education and the Examination Centre, support the processes of quality assessment. (See Table 1: roles and responsibilities of different actors in VET quality management process) Significant methodology development work has been done, and number of frameworks, procedures and quality standards has been developed. The methodological framework for the external evaluation of schools has been developed by the Bureau for Development of Education Services, in cooperation with VET Centre. Quality indicators of external evaluation are defined at four levels: very successful; successful; satisfactory; and unsatisfactory. Each indicator level has its own definition.

Rulebook on the content, form Montenegrin Vocational and manner of determining The General Law on Education Education Development the quality of education in Strategy (2010-2014) institutions  Establish procedures for  Analysing external  Develop methodological licensing education providers. evaluation report framework for evaluation  and national indicators for Ministry of Adopting concepts for external measuring quality Education and internal evaluation  Creating legislation  Establishing a system of quality assurance in VET at the national level.  External evaluation  External evaluation (with  Preparing concept and VET Centre). Bureau for methodology for external  Nominate supervisors and Education evaluation teams for external Services evaluation. (BES)  Create concept and methodology for internal  Prepare external evaluation evaluation for general reports education institutions  External evaluation VET  Perform external evaluation  Establishing a system of schools of VET institutions (with quality assurance in VET  Preparing concept and BES) at school level. methodology for internal  Nominate consultants for  Improve the procedures VET Centre evaluation external evaluation. and measurements for self-  Promoting EQAVET  Prepare external evaluation evaluation  Analysing schools plan for reports for VET schools.  Training internal improving quality  Analysing internal evaluators in VET schools evaluation reports Examination  Perform external exams on the Centre end of secondary education

5  Obliged to perform internal  Perform Internal evaluation  Defining strategy for quality evaluation (self-evaluation) at VET school level  Provide internal evaluation  Establish a group for report. internal evaluation. Schools  Prepare plan for improving  Training internal evaluators the quality of education and  Performing internal training evaluation

Table 1: roles and responsibilities of different actors in VET quality management process VET schools are legally obliged to implement internal evaluation and to prepare a report. Reports that are submitted within the process of external evaluation represent a very significant source of data for analysing the weaknesses and strengths of each individual VET school/provider of vocational education and training. They also help determine whether the measures taken to improve quality are actually relevant and if they actually work. Considering the internal evaluation process, methodology sets four levels of indicators, similar to but not identical with the external ones indicators: excellent, good, satisfactory; and unsatisfactory. In accordance with the indicators level, schools print/issue their report in green (achieved results), yellow (partially achieved results) or red colour (not achieved results), as presented in the picture below.

Diagram: Indicators and scale of the internal evaluation of schools

Since 2004, all VET schools took part in the first cycles of external evaluation. The second cycle of external evaluation has been completed for about 25 VET schools out of 40. The second cycle of external evaluation showed that small number of schools made obvious progress in multiple segments, such as: equipping of workshops, training of teachers, new methods in teaching, greater participation of employers and companies in training, and stronger support to those students who lag behind in their studies.

It is worthwhile to notice that, between two rounds of external evaluation, most schools managed to keep the quality of education and training at the same level. Some schools showed a higher level of quality in areas pointed out as unsatisfactory or barely satisfactory during the first cycle of external evaluation. However, a decline in quality within the areas

6 previously estimated as “successful” was noticed in same schools. This necessitated the need to create mechanisms and systems which; through monitoring of quality, provide sustainability of the achieved quality level, as well as its continuous improvement. In addition, the second cycle of external evaluation indicates important findings that may be valuable explored further:  A small number of schools defined their internal (school) descriptors of indicators for the purposes of internal evaluation. This indicates the difference between standard levels of external and internal assessments of quality.

 To a certain extent, vocational schools form their attitude to quality based on the achievement of the highest possible key indicator standards, which are assessed through the process of external evaluation. Basically, the main reason is to achieve as good a grade as possible through the process of external evaluation.

 The process of internal evaluation in schools, which is still not fully functional in practice, is largely directed towards the formal assessment of indicator levels, and only partly towards the activities aimed at quality improvement.

For the reasons stated above, in order to strengthen external measures for quality improvement, in 2010 internal evaluation became a mandatory exercise for VET schools, incorporating elements of self-evaluation. The changes in legislation have been introduced through the amendments to the General Law on Education at the system level. From August 2010 improving the quality of VET schools has been done through self-evaluation each year in several areas and every two years internal evaluation being completed as a comprehensive exercise. In order to offer schools some kind of support for internal evaluation processes, guidelines have been provided.

The Quality Assurance Model in vocational education and training in Montenegro (developed by the Centre for Vocational Education) contains a catalogue consisting of 25 questionnaires classified by key areas for self-evaluation and internal evaluation, which have been implemented since 2006 on pilot bases. Since 2011 vocational schools have been implementing the framework, containing key indicators, quantitative and qualitative indicators relevant for the quality school work, teaching, learning and students achievement. The current focus is mainly on upper secondary VET. There is however awareness of needs for also ensuring that adult learning providers are covered by quality assurance process. One challenge that Montenegro has to face is low participation of adults in life-long learning, which could potentially be improved if quality of VET provision for adults is improved.

This development marks new stage in the introduction of explicit policies in quality in VET in Montenegro. However, while it is important to ensure better integration of self-evaluation and internal evaluation in VET schools, it is also important to ensure that wider picture on introducing quality assurance policies in VET is clear - the quality of teaching and learning needs to be at the heart of self-evaluation, internal evaluation and external evaluation. It is also very important that the VET schools are well aware that self-evaluation, internal evaluation and external evaluation are all related to VET schools improvement process and that is their primary objective. Therefore, approaches should be sought to encourage discussions and dialogue which will promote common understanding of the key factors that are influencing the teaching and learning in VET schools and the exercise is not simply a formal one. This need exist at both levels – VET school level and VET system level. If self- evaluation and internal evaluation priorities are not clearly valued, there is a risk that

7 schools develop self-evaluation activities and internal evaluation process only to satisfy demands for accountability during external evaluation.

The impact of internal evaluation on the VET schools: New steps in direction of supporting schools to introduce quality in a sustainable way

The difference between internal and external evaluation in quality assurance essentially comes down to the question of who bears responsibility for the process (Scriven, 1991; Nevo, 2001). If the activities are undertaken by the school itself, then it is about internal evaluation. Internal quality assurance means that the monitoring, development and improvement of educational quality takes place within the school, whereas, in the case of external quality assurance the initiative for undertaking quality assurance activities lies with persons or institutions which are outside the school (e.g. the educational inspectorate or an accreditation institution) (Nevo, 2001). External evaluations by the inspectorate usually focus on policy, legislation and regulations and educational performance (i.e. the statutory expectations with respect to student outcomes). Internal evaluation can in principle concern itself with whatever topic the school believes to be important (three groups of expectations).4

The Quality Assurance Model for VET schools in Montenegro, and its internal evaluation part indicates that “quality” in the school should be developed as a result of team work and in manner of on-going dialogue. It also based on of self-evaluation, where self-evaluation is referred to as a process which is planned annually and is selective based on the needs for improvement of the school. Finally, based on self-evaluation and internal evaluation process VET schools need to develop so-called “Catalogue of quality”, and in a period of two years to complete the internal evaluation process and issue so-called “VET school report of the internal evaluation”. Further, VET schools develop so-called Plans for quality improvement, which contain priority activities for development of the school, defined dynamics, responsibilities and necessary funds. Careful review of the VET school reports of internal evaluation indicates that it is exactly here that the quality improvement in one school begins. Paradoxically it is often here where it ends. .Only in cases when the school management succeeds in accessing funds through social partnerships or international support is it possible to implement activities foreseen for quality improvement in the schools which are defined in the Plan for quality improvement. Otherwise, schools are left with plans that are difficult to implement or even worse , eg, as is the case with majority of the schools – where development plans are presented in such a way that limited funds and a lack of support are taken into account, which objectively cannot satisfy or enable the achievement of the objectives stated.

4 Van Petegem, P. (2005) Vormgeven aan schoolbeleid: effectieve-scholenonderzoek als inspiratiebron voor de zelfevaluatie van scholen. [Shaping school policy: school effectiveness research as a source of inspiration for school self evaluation]. Acco, Leuven.

8 Diagram: Internal evaluation of the VET schools as a continuous process

The results of the internal evaluation of VET schools highlight important issues relevant for the future development of VET quality policies in Montenegro.

Namely, since the expectations and objectives for quality improvement of the schools differ, certainly the idea of what quality is varied among different VET schools. This also depends on the type of schools. In Montenegro there are three types of schools:  vocational schools which offer education in highly specialised areas (economics, electronics, health services and tourism),

 schools with a large number of programmes from various fields (engineering, agriculture, construction work, chemistry, transportation, etc.), and

 mixed schools, which offer both general high education and vocational education.

For this reason the planning of activities for quality improvement is based on different interpretations of quality that the VET school describes in the developmental plans. While for some schools the quality is linked with “expectations“ in terms of results (eg: the expectation to reduce the drop out rate in VET programmes, expectations of higher grades in final exams, etc.;), for others, quality is understood and mainly interpreted as a process, which is further illustrated from few examples below:

Box 2: What is quality: Statements from VET schools in Montenegro?

 “Quality is a mechanism for the improvement of education and training, the systematic monitoring and evaluation of activities, improvement of planning, strengthening of schools, an indicator of the current activities in schools, experience, expectations and integration into the European educational system”;  “Quality is a model of the good organisation of a school with precisely defined objectives and the creation of policies acceptable to teachers, students, parents, social partners and the local community”  “Quality is a subject and matter of learning, how students learn, how much is learned, in order for the students to learn more on average (qualitatively), not just reproduce what they have heard in the classroom, but be risk takes and innovative”

9  “Quality is the result of team work, good communication and the exchange of information significant for the achievement of quality and success in every day teaching and learning”  “Quality is the implementation of the objectives from the Annual Plan, strategies and enrolment policies, student achievement and student impact in society, satisfaction of students, parents and employees, enhancement of resources, observance, control and improvement of school processes (particularly teaching), etc.”  “Quality is meeting educational objectives in a timely manner: improvement of the quality of education and training, human resources development, improvement of student achievements, development of school support to students, improvement of cooperation among staff members and the student- teacher relationship, of the technological and safety conditions in schools, of cooperation with social partners, encouraging cooperation with parents and the local community, participation in projects conducted by NGOs and international organisations”;  “Quality is preparing students for lifelong learning and the acquirement of knowledge, skills, and competences that would enable them to perform at a high level in future jobs”;  “Quality is the sharing of scientific, pedagogical and professional knowledge and skills, analysis and development of existing school practices and capacities in line with its aims, the needs of the community and legal framework, orientation towards meeting the requirements and needs of all actors in the educational process, continual improvement of the educational process, monitoring how motivated staff are to improve quality, etc.

While this is understandable, it also suggests the complexity of VET quality issues at the school level. In any quality assurance policy it is essential to find a way how to align the quality “expectations” with quality “process”. This is, probably also, one of the reasons why internal evaluation, as one of the tools for quality improvement at VET school level, has been used by only about 25 % of VET vocational schools, and mainly by those which had already accepted quality as one of the objectives for their development, and had clear expectations for it. Other schools understood internal evaluation only as an obligation to be fulfilled and for producing the actual report for the needs of the external evaluation. This means, that all together about 75 % of the schools accepted internal evaluation formally, with no significant implementation of the process or creation of a school quality improvement system. Even with these difficulties and significant shortage of resources at both levels – system and school level - overall, the experience of Montenegro demonstrates the value of a common internal evaluation framework.

VET schools that had quality as an aim and a vision for development of their schools, and at the same time invested in the training of school teams, were able to better define their quality improvement directions. Maritime School in Kotor,is good example which heavily rely on the internal evaluation process in order to keep up with specificities in the labour market for its graduates. Moreover, this school has been systematically approaching the implementation of quality standards over a period of time. Following completion of their education and training in the Maritime School, students become cadets in international maritime companies. Students are eligible for employment only if the school holds a certificate on quality. This has made the school management create a quality system supervised by a specially trained quality manager. Based on defined procedures, the school assesses indicators which imply quality improvement. For this particular school, external evaluators pay a visit every year, while every three years this VET school undergoes comprehensive external evaluation of its overall quality, which is a requirement to keep the school on the “white list”, which enables the cadets to get employed.

Other good examples are VET schools from Bjelo Polje and Plav. During the four-year period, through developmental activities and consistent work on implementation of its Plan for quality improvement, the Vocational School in Bijelo Polje improved the conditions for education and training, which had an impact and significantly improved teaching and

10 learning services that the VET school provides. Based on clearly stated objectives this school is transforming the way teachers create learning environments for developing key competences through intensive in-service training. Another good example is Plav Combined High School, which thanks to an internal evaluation based on clear expectations and a well elaborated process, has developed many practical approaches for improving the educational process. They include: a quality group with teachers providing continuous evaluation and feedback on professional work; professional tuition for teachers; a study centre for students with 20 learning areas; many outdoor and environmental activities and strong community links and international links.

Major lessons learned from Montenegro experience in introducing quality assurance policies in the VET system: What is next?

The process of external evaluation played a significant role in the VET reform. An important step forward has been made from the traditional system of inspection of teachers towards counselling the management and teachers in vocational schools about which activities for quality assurance and improvement to take and how to perform them. Besides those with experience in education, the process of external evaluation also includes representatives of employers, experts from various fields of trade and the economy, and university representatives as well as others. Schools have become familiarized with quality standards, indicators, assessment criteria, etc. All this has contributed to a change in the internal organisation and direction of activities toward key areas of quality that lead to usable knowledge and skills of students, competitive in the labour market.

The experience of Montenegro with the introduction of internal evaluation showed that it is possible to motivate VET schools to be better engaged in quality improvement activities. Results are verifiable: improved student achievements, better school leadership, improved accountability, and greater satisfaction among employers. However: ‘neither external nor internal strategies will impact upon the progress of students, unless the strategy itself impacts at the same time on the internal conditions or change capacity of the school. It is clear that if a school improvement strategy is to contribute to the sustained progress of students, then it must impact on, and be integrated with, the school’s capacity for development. The argument is that if the aspiration of continual improvement is to be taken seriously, then the focus of authentic school improvement needs to be on the school’s capacity for development. “Real” school improvement strategies therefore need to be context-specific, both in terms of the learning needs of students and the organisational conditions of the school’ (Hopkins, 2001, p. 160, emphasis in original).

The second round of external evaluation indicated numerous improvements in VET schools, significant participation of teachers in different school activities, which contributed to an improvement in the quality of teaching. However, it also pointed out that the indicators used in internal and external evaluation turned into limiting factors for some schools. Experience from the previous period indicates clear needs for further development of the process of internal evaluation, and improvement of indicators and tools for the assessment process. The transparency of the process should also be within the focus of further development. And this particularly relates to the reports which are developed in the process. Making them publicly available could bust awareness and drive for improvement of quality in the VET schools. They could be also subject for further discussion. Reports of the school evaluation could be used to collect best practices from the schools; encourage schools to share best practice and to improve performances. In some case they can also be

11 used to identify bottlenecks in specific schools and encourage the schools to improve. Where vocational education is concerned, further development envisages the involvement of partners, social partners, employers, etc. in the process of internal evaluation of schools, education and training, and conditions for the acquisition of knowledge and skills.

From the point of view of usefulness in VET policy making, internal evaluation can help policy makers to see how each school performs and how it compares with other schools. It can also provide important information for assessing where weaknesses may exist and which schools are benefiting most or at least from specific policy actions. Having a common approach to school quality means that it is easier to identify differences between schools, to understand why those differences may be occurring and to find possible ways of addressing these differences. Having a policy framework for ensuring quality in all schools by combining internal and external evaluation with review and improvement processes, supported by quantitative and qualitative analyses, can reinforce the benefits for individual schools. Potentially, this can provide a good balance between top-down steering and bottom-up implementation.

A trend in many countries is that the primary responsibility for educational quality lies with the school- schools are increasingly autonomous in terms of their freedom to formulate and conduct their own operations. In return for this autonomy, schools are being required to evaluate their own educational quality and to come up with their own plans for improvement. The responsibilities for quality assurance in education are more elaboratde and increasingly spread across various partners. The parallel existence of these responsibilities has led the government, the educational inspectorate and schools to look for a way in which internal and external evaluations can be matched with each other.5 This is also becoming critical issue for the quality assurance policies in Montenegro – how to ensure that external and internal evaluation are better integrated and ensure continuous VET school improvement? This “next steps” will better support a positive relationship between top-down policies with bottom up practices at the school level.

Bibilography: Cedefop, Glossary/Glossaire: Quality in education and training/La qualité dans l'enseignement et la formation, Cedefop, 2011. Fullan, M., The new meaning of educational change, 3rd edition, Teachers College Press, Columbia University, New York, 2001. Honig, M.I., ‘Where's the ''up'' in bottom-up reform?’, Educational Policy, Vol. 18, No. 4, 2004, pp. 527–61. Honig, M.I., Complexity and policy implementation: challenges and opportunities for the field, State University of New York Press, Albany, 2006.

Hopkins, D., School improvement for real, RoutledgeFalmer, London, 2001.

Nikolovska, M., ‘How to achieve educational change in ETF partner countries: between dreams and reality’, in ETF yearbook 2007: quality in vocational education and training: modern vocational training policies and learning processes, European Training Foundation, Turin, 2007.

5 Faubert, V.(2009), “School evaluation: Current practices in OECD Countries and a Literature Review”, OECD Education Working Papers

12 Nevo, D.(2001) School evaluation: internal or external?, Studies in Educational Evaluation

Senge, P.M., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J. and Kleiner, A., Schools that learn: a fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents, and everyone who cares about education. Doubleday, New York, 2000.

ETF policy brief: VET schools self-assessment: challenges and opportunities for turning schools into learning organisations, Margareta Nikolovska ETF, Janaury 2012

Van Petegem, P. (2005) Vormgeven aan schoolbeleid: effectieve-scholenonderzoek als inspiratiebron voor de zelfevaluatie van scholen. [Shaping school policy: school eff ectiveness research as a source of inspiration for school self evaluation]. Acco, Leuven.

Faubert, V.(2009), “School evaluation: Current practices in OECD Countries and a Literature Review”, OECD Education Working Papers

Ministry of Education and Science, Montenegrin Vocational Education Development Strategy (2010- 2014), Podgorica, 2010.

Ministarstvo prosvjete i sporta, Strategija razvoja stručnog obrazovanja za sjever Crne Gore (2011- 2014), Podgorica, 2010.

British Council & Centar za stručno obrazovanje, Priručnik – razvoj stručnih škola procesom interne evaluacije, Podgorica, 2011.

Zavod za školstvo, Metodologija za eksternu evaluaciju vaspitno-obrazovnog rada , Podgorica, jun 2010.

Projekat VET 2004 – Podrška stručnom obrazovanju i obuci u Crnoj Gori, Model obezbjeđivanja kvaliteta u stručnom obrazovanju i obuci u Crnoj Gori, Podgorica, 2006.

Ministarstvo prosvjete i nauke, Akcioni plan sprovođenja Strategije razvoja stručnog obrazovanja u Crnoj Gori (2010-2011), Podgorica, 2010.

Ministarstvo zdravlja, rada i socijalnog staranja, Nacionalna strategija zapošljavanja i razvoja ljudskih resursa za period 2007-2011., Podgorica, 2008.

Ministarstvo rada i socijalnog staranja, Nacionalni akcioniplan zapošljavanja za period 2010-2011., Podgorica, 2009.

Projekat Cards 3 & Ministarstvo zdravlja, rada i socijalnog staranja, Razvoj ljudskih resursa - CrnaGora 2017. godine, Reforma tržišta rada i razvoj radne snage, Podgorica, 2008.