I confess I’d always thought Australia’s AQTF was modelled on systems in other first world countries. It was an assumption on my part. Now I wonder if we’ve become a model for others.

On 30 November 2002 the education Ministers of 31 European countries and the European Commission [a sub-commission of the European Union http://europa.eu.int/index_en.htm] adopted the Copenhagen Declaration on enhanced cooperation in European vocational education and training.

The Commission aims to make Europe’s education and training systems a world quality reference by 2010. Europe has recognised that VET is no longer a purely national issue and that individuals need to be able to follow learning and work pathways that can take them between different levels of education and training, different occupations and sectors, as well as between countries.

With individuals becoming increasingly mobile across borders within Europe there’s an urgent need to develop a "common currency" of qualifications and competences. As was the case when Australia moved towards a national system, the Commission realises an emphasis on quality is essential in order to improve the standing of vocational qualifications and competences at international level.

“At the time of the Declaration, the Member States, EEA countries the social partners and the Commission had already begun cooperation at a practical level, focused on a number of concrete outputs:

• A single framework for transparency of competences and qualifications.
• System of credit transfer for VET.
• Common criteria and principles for quality in VET.
• Common principles for the validation of non-formal and informal learning.
• Lifelong guidance. The aim is to strengthen the European dimension of information guidance and counselling services, enabling citizens to have improved access to lifelong learning. “

One of the key features of the Declaration is that it was developed within the perspective of lifelong learning, emphasising the need for citizens to make use of the wide range of vocational learning opportunities available, for example at school, in higher education, at the workplace, or as part of a private course. The intended outputs described above are being designed from the point of view of the user, making it possible to link together and build on learning acquired at different stages of life, in both formal and non-formal contexts.

For Australians it will particularly interesting to follow the progress of the Copenhagen Declaration as it has so many similarities with our own AQTF. The underlying principles of learner focus, flexibility, mobility, lifelong learning and quality are the same. Although there is no mention (that I’ve found) one wonders if the Australian VET system was one of those investigated by the Commission and subsequently used when developing the Copenhagen Declaration.

Although Australia has been continuously challenged to reconcile the varying interests of the States and Territories, this pales into insignificance when compared with the challenge the European system will face in reconciling the interests of the different member countries. Agreements made as part of the Copenhagen Declaration may affect the competitiveness of the smaller economic members while being very much in the interest of the larger, economically stronger nations. Hence, the fine print in the Declaration will be carefully scrutinised.

The European and Australian systems have many common elements. However, one notable point of difference is the prime position in which the Copenhagen Declaration has placed the validation of non-formal and informal learning. Our Australian system includes the recognition of learning from non-formal contexts as part of the notion of “recognition” for applicants to accredited qualifications. However, the Europeans have taken this a step further by attempting to validate learning acquired in other than structured, accredited qualifications. This is an interesting concept that warrants further exploration.

A very recent and second notable point of difference from the European system is the impending abolishment of ANTA. The Copenhagen Declaration relies on having a central body, the European Commission, to coordinate its implementation and ongoing operation. ANTA is our equivalent and, like the Commission, is overseen by representatives from all members (State and Territory Governments as well as the Federal Government). Given the recent notice of ANTA’s abolishment in July 2005, it’ll be interesting to see if that role can be effectively undertaken by one of the interested parties (the Federal Government).

A third, and equally notable point of difference is the Europass. In essence, this is an electronic tool (template) that enables individuals to rationalise all their learning, work and qualification related documents and experience into a consistent and European recognised format. The Europass is described as “the single European framework for the transparency of qualifications and competencies.” It would be worthwhile to follow the initial trials of the electronic Europass portfolio in 2004 and if they’re successful, consider a similar concept in Australia. It would make it much easier for both employers to compare individuals and RTOs to establish the equivalence of previous learning, no matter what the source.

In summary, it appears that the Europeans drew on the Australian experience when establishing the Copenhagen Declaration but have gone several steps further. Now Australia may be able to draw from the European experience.