Ensuring Quality Vocational and Higher Education in Lithuania

• Strict regulation of the design of study programmes in Lithuanian higher education limits innovation and alignment of provision with the latest developments in scientific research, the economy and society. A key recommendation for Lithuania is to focus on identifying and removing regulatory barriers, for example by allowing fully online programmes and micro-credentials, to foster greater flexibility and innovation in programmes.

• Lithuania’s external QA system has evolved to be more enhancement-oriented and give greater autonomy to individual HEIs, but further improvements can be made to enhance its impact for institutions by: a) supporting well-performing institutions to become self-accrediting, balanced with a more in-depth assessment of the labour market relevance and student demand for new programmes; b) aligning SKVC’s evaluation procedures with the research assessments performed by the Lithuanian Research Council (LMT); c) enhancing data use to identify at-risk institutions and programmes; and d) developing a dedicated sectoral enhancement offer to foster teaching excellence in higher education.

• Professional standards provide a structured foundation for VET but are slow to update, limiting VET providers’ responsiveness to labour market needs. Lithuania should streamline the updating of professional standards and integrate regular labour market analysis into programme development.

• Apprenticeships lack a distinct identity and role compared to school-based programmes and require higher quality work placements. Stricter requirements on work-based learning content and systematic monitoring of the quality of placements are essential.

• Lithuania’s external QA system for VET is still in its early stages of development. The recent shift of responsibility to KPMPC provides an opportunity to improve institutional reviews but limited financial and human resources hinder systematic evaluations. Better alignment between annual monitoring indicators and external reviews, stronger follow-up mechanisms, and a clearer framework for apprenticeship monitoring are needed.

• Many HEIs and VET providers have only recently established internal QA systems and have limited independent capacity to support the pedagogical competence development of their teaching staff. Lithuania lacks a national eco-system for pedagogical enhancement in higher education and VET that can support institutions with this task.

• To support teaching excellence and innovation in the VET sector, the report advises Lithuania to revise initial teacher education requirements and strengthen the KPMPC-managed methodological commissions to foster peer learning and capacity building. A dedicated support system for in-company trainers is also needed.

• For higher education, the report recommends that Lithuania develop a universal teaching qualification, in close collaboration with HEIs, drawing inspiration from models in Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway. Establishing HEI-led centres of excellence would help support and recognise teaching excellence.

• Limited collaboration between VET providers and HEIs in aligning their curricula with each other and the skills needed by the economy and society hinders the creation of clear pathways between VET, higher education and the labour market for students. Separate regulatory, funding and QA frameworks exacerbate fragmentation and competition for students between VET and higher education providers. The development of a common vision and oversight for post-compulsory VET and higher education, with a focus on skills development and fostering SKVC-KPMPC collaboration in QA, may help to build bridges in the system.

• Each year, the Lithuanian Government determines the number of state-funded study places in VET and higher education, but the process makes insufficient use of skills anticipation data. The current admissions and funding systems also fuel unhealthy levels of competition for students among institutions. Performance-based funding in higher education was introduced to address these issues, but the system needs a more strategic approach, including qualitative evidence and long-term strategic agreements between the government and HEIs to influence institutional quality cultures. A similar model could be considered for VET.

• Limited system-wide data on the quality and relevance of teaching and learning in VET and higher education hampers strategic decision-making and transparency for students. Moving forward, Lithuania may consider: a) developing a national student survey and graduate tracking system across both sectors; b) incorporating these data into an online student information platform; c) investing in research on “what works” in education, and its dissemination among policy makers and practitioners; and d) re-introducing an annual “state of VET and higher education” report to support strategic decision-making in the Government and among institutional leadership.

The implementation of the recommendations presented in this report will require a concerted effort by actors across the higher education and VET sectors. It also offers an opportunity for Lithuania to deliberately and strategically bring together both sectors in holistic and joined-up policy making, guided by an overarching and integrated vision of skills development, which overcomes polarisation to create stronger connections between different levels and types of post-compulsory VET and higher education.