The Fédération de la Formation Professionnelle (FFP – Professional learning federation) recently organised a conference on training quality.  It is a subject which affects all of us whether we’re donors or recipients. 

Since the beginning of the training law’s existence, it has also been a continued source of discussion between social partners, administration, politicians and anybody else who might be involved.

 

The debate, in all its glory, is justified when we think about the annual global expenses devoted to training:  26 billion euros. We then measure the necessary effects to provide in order to significantly improve the working populations’ average qualification level, whether it be of younger people, job seekers or employees confronted by permanent technological and organisational changes at work.

 

But often, the importance of these efforts is undervalued because the invocation sometimes replaces the reason with a lack of real training session knowledge.

 

This state of affairs justifies the holding of this conference devoted to training quality.  Indeed, it was about bringing around the emergence of richer analytical elements in the hope of constructing the future. From the outset, the reality appears complex when we are aware that this activity is practised by private parties of a fair majority.

 

The principle of national balance, consisting of reserving production to the private sector and education to the state, is being put in question.

But reality forces us to accept that nowadays more than two thirds of training provisions are entrusted with private operators. Yet, access to the duties of the profession is free; it requires no degree or particular status:  a simple declaration to the administrative authority will suffice. 

 

At the time, the originator of the law, Jacques Delors, wanted all professionals to be able to easily transfer their skills. Sharing operational knowledge was down to them. It was therefore unnecessary to close the market by establishing qualification-based criteria to exercise jobs in the training profession. That would have penalised all those who, without necessary qualifications, possessed real-life experience obtained on the job.

 

Within such conditions, how can we improve, and more importantly, evaluate, quality?

The primary principle is to recognise that quality is assessed in particular contexts and not in the absolute. Quality is assessed depending on implemented methods, targets to meet (as much for the learner as for the supporter), on the level of the attendees and the level of teaching tools used. In this domain, we suffer considerably from the absence of tangible results, but also from a lack of recognised practices and reliable indicators.

 

The recent CEREQ study (Qualification Study and Research Centre), whose primary elements were unveiled during our forum, states 4 evaluation modes in France:

 Evaluation of trainee satisfaction both on the spot and after training by self-declaration
 Evaluation of acquired skills or abilities by tests or quizzes, even exams in the case of qualification-based training
 Evaluation of work-situated performance after training.
 Global evaluation of R.O.I. (return on investment)

It is shown in the study that the first mode is practiced in more than 50% of cases and that the second is slowly being implemented because being recognised by a certificate is one of the best elements of motivation. The third, however, is still in its infancy and the fourth, non-existent.

 

In light of this study, the expanse of the project becomes evident, and can only be completed successfully in the long term and with the involvement of all involved parties.

In this perspective, I’ll examine in my next post some contributions likely to significantly advance a dossier which, yes, is difficult, but oh so very important and exciting.