Conference working groups - description
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Conference working groups - description

on

  • 345 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
345
Views on SlideShare
345
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Conference working groups - description Conference working groups - description Document Transcript

  • DAY ONE – Monday 11 November 2013 WORKING GROUPS – 14:00 TO 15:45 Organization Project participants will be divided into country groups (1) Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia (2) Albania, Israel, Kosovo and Turkey. Each group will have a facilitator who will explain the aim of the session and the methodology. Within groups (1) and (2) project participants will be clustered as ‘policy-makers’ or ‘school professionals’. Each cluster will sit at a multi-national ‘Café Table’. Each ‘Café Table’ will have moderator and rapporteur. The moderator will facilitate the participants to reflect on a significant finding and a set of statements that emerged from the synthesis study, and to consider priorities for ‘follow-up’ actions to address common challenges. The rapporteurs will present the conclusions of the ‘Café Table’ at the plenary session. A third group of seminar participants, who were not directly involved in the project, will be invited to a question and answer session at which they will gain further insight into the findings contained in the synthesis study and may contribute their reflections on its outcomes. The group will have a facilitator and panel members from the LSE team will respond to questions. A. AIM-of the ‘Café Table’ activity The aim of the activity is to reflect on a significant finding and a set of statements that emerged from the synthesis study, and to consider priorities for ‘follow-up’ actions, to address common challenges, from the viewpoints of policy-makers and school professionals. B. CONTENT-VET’s ‘fitness for purpose’: Evidence gaps Upper-secondary VET has the dual purpose of safeguarding the societal and labour market inclusion of young people by contributing to their preparation for employment and responsible adult life; meeting these goals strengthens social cohesion. A key finding of the study is that evidence, regarding the trajectories of young people who graduate from, or ‘drop-out’ of VET is often sparse and/or unreliable. Insufficient evidence can make it difficult to demonstrate that VET achieves its purposes. C. TASKS-reflections and proposals: Making VET ‘fit for purpose’ 1. Please reflect on VET’s ‘fitness for purpose’, as regards safeguarding the societal and labour market inclusion of young people, with particular reference to the following set of statements that emerged from the synthesis study: 1.1. Policies for education and training, employment and social welfare are insufficiently ‘joined-up’ and co-ordinated; 1.2. Young people with disadvantaged socio- economic backgrounds and/or special needs tend to be overly represented in the VET schools; despite the greater needs of these young people, the VET schools are often comparatively under-resourced and unattractive; 1.3. Employers and social partners are inadequately engaged as partners in VET policy development, governance, management and provision; this has a negative impact on the relevance and status of VET qualifications; 1.4. Competent school professionals and relevant methods and materials are crucial for the attainment of quality learning outcomes, yet disturbing numbers of young people, responding to the project surveys, expressed dissatisfaction with their learning facilitators, contexts and contents; 1.5. Supportive frameworks for school-leavers, including career guidance and job placement services, are often ineffectual and there is a dearth of tracer studies and relevant research to provide evidence for policy action to ameliorate this. 2. Please consider a priority list of measures (no more than five), which need to be taken at VET policy and/or provision levels to improve VET’s ‘fitness for purpose’ that group members consider could be implemented (and how) in the short to medium term (2-5 years). Consider whether co-operation across countries could enhance the quality of the measures and, if so, the form(s) that co-operation might take. Working group discussion- key topics | 01
  • Working room 1 - Group one: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia Facilitator: Elizabeth Watters Café Table’ one: policy-makers Moderator: Nina Brankovic Rapporteur: Nikica Mojsoska Blazevski ‘Café Table’ two: school professionals Moderator: Maja Ristovska Rapporteur: Natalija Lukic ‘Café Table’ three: school professionals Moderator: Jadranka Kaludjerovic Rapporteur: Zrinka Ristic Dedic Working room 2 - Group two: Albania, Israel, Kosovo and Turkey Facilitator: Lida Kita Café Table’ one: policy-makers Moderator: Basak Yavcan Rapporteur: Ardiana Gashi ‘Café Table’ two: school professionals Moderator: Sidita Dibra Rapporteur: Jehona Serhati ‘Café Table’ three: school professionals Moderator: Nermin Oruc Rapporteur: Gözde Gülören Working room 3 - Group three: Peer Reflection Israeli policy-makers, representatives of EU institutions and international guests Facilitator: Sabina Nari Panel: William Bartlett and Marina Cino Pagliarello Moderator: Gad Yair Rapporteur: Nir Rotem Working group discussion- key topics | 02