Chapter 3. Strengthening co-operation between specific actors for adult learning

Rules are not enough

Ministry representatives agreed that there is scope to do more to achieve the intent of the Rules of Procedure in adult learning policy making. There are examples of effective inter-ministerial co-ordination of adult learning policies via existing co-ordination mechanisms. Yet the ministry representatives agreed that the process for inter-ministerial reviews of proposals does not consistently result in substantive input into the content of adult learning policy proposals. Civil servants often feel they are too busy to fully engage in these processes. When they do, it is often out of goodwill, as there are no major consequences for engaging only partially with the proposals of other ministries. A previous OECD review found that inter-ministerial consultation in general occurs too late for meaningful input from various ministries (OECD, 2012[11]). Ministries may also invoke the urgency clause to exempt their own proposals from the requirement for inter-ministerial consultation.

However, the ministry representatives agreed that rules are not the core issue – neither the current set of rules nor improvements to them will be sufficient to drive inter-ministerial co-ordination. While rules and individual goodwill are necessary, they cannot generate the culture, depth and consistency of co-ordination between the ministries involved in adult learning envisioned by the SRS 2030 and SJU 2020. More importantly, the public administration needs to develop a culture of co-operation. This requires, among other things, civil servants being convinced of the value of co-operation and having sufficient skills and recognition to work effectively with others.

Learning and development

Ministry representatives stated that many civil servants may lack the skills and experience required for effective inter-ministerial co-ordination for adult learning, a point also made in a previous Slovenian study (Drofenik, 2013[12]). The OECD has identified four areas of skills required for modern civil services, each of which includes elements of co-operation (Figure 3.1). Effective inter-ministerial co-ordination requires civil servants to have skills to convene, collaborate and develop shared understanding through communication, trust and mutual commitment. Targeted training, inter-ministerial and cross-sectoral mobility assignments (exchanges), mentoring, coaching, networking, and peer learning can all help develop these skills (OECD, 2017[13]). In addition, these skills and forms of learning are also required for effective co-operation with municipalities (see Action 5) and stakeholders (see Action 6). If civil servants’ skills for co-operation are not developed, the impact of other actions to strengthen co-operation in adult learning will be diminished.

Figure 3.1. Civil service skills for public value: A framework

Source: OECD (2017[14]), Skills for a High Performing Civil Service – HIGHLIGHTS, OECD Public Governance Reviews, www.oecd.org/gov/pem/Skills-Highlights.pdf.

The public administration in Slovenia does not have a process for systematically assessing and responding to skills gaps among civil servants. Although the SJU 2020 envisions such a process, training needs are currently identified on an individual basis, typically during annual performance reviews. This information does not feed into the training delivery or procurement planning of the Administration Academy.

The supply and uptake of co-operation-oriented training programmes is limited in the public administration. Table 3.1 shows the seven programmes the Administration Academy offers that it identified as covering co-operation skills. Enrolment in these programmes ranges from 90 to 460 participants per year and some of the programmes are only available to managers. And, while the Administration Academy uses a range of channels to promote its training, none of the ministerial staff consulted during the project were aware these programmes existed. Furthermore, the amount of training offered by individual ministries differs considerably (see Annex Table 3.A.1), and may be insufficient to boost the skills needed to support a culture of co-operation.

Existing learning opportunities for civil servants have only recently started to move away from traditional teaching modes like lectures. More use could be made of experiential learning, mobility assignments, mentoring, coaching, networking and peer learning. In particular, participants noted that inter-ministerial staff mobility is rare in the central public administration. There is a programme for staff exchanges between the public and private sector (Partnerstvo za spremembe), but these are typically short (e.g. 1-2 weeks) and placements may not necessarily align with the individual’s policy area (e.g. adult learning). This is a missed opportunity for staff to develop a cross-sectoral view of complex issues like adult learning policy.

Responsibility and recognition

Individual performance plans are not systematically used in Slovenia’s central public administration to encourage inter-ministerial co-operation, including for adult learning policy. While the current decrees on promotions include criteria that could be used to recognise co-operation, inter-ministerial co-ordination is not explicitly mentioned. Ministry representatives reported that they are expected to engage in inter-ministerial co-ordination (and stakeholder engagement) as part of their work. However, the degree to which this is explicit, formalised and recognised varies across teams and ministries. Linking promotion criteria to co-ordination and co-operation efforts in adult learning would help legitimise them as a priority. As other reviews have highlighted, managers may need to be more convinced of the value of the annual performance process and given better training and guidance to use it to its full potential (MJU, 2015[5]; OECD, 2012[11]).

Resourcing for co-operation

In some cases, the resources allocated to inter-ministerial co-ordination in adult learning policy may be insufficient to support effective co-operation. Some ministerial participants stated that they lack the time required to properly invest in co-ordination and engagement activities for adult learning policy. Staff responsibilities for adult learning within individual ministries may be unclear or insufficient, and too few staff may be dedicated to co-ordination and engagement. One previous review concluded that the adult education unit in the MIZŠ would need to be strengthened and expanded to successfully implement the national master plan for adult education (Jelenc, 2007[9]). The Adult Education Association (2012[15]) argued that the MIZŠ’ current adult education unit is overburdened by administrative tasks and lacks time for policy development. It called for the creation of a stand-alone directorate for adult education. Some participants cited hiring freezes and restrictions on part-time or short-term positions as contributing to “a lack of time” for co-ordination. Representatives delegated to the AE Body or ad hoc bodies by their ministries typically lack the decision-making capacity required to enter into inter-ministerial partnerships or other forms of co-operation.

While not focused on adult learning policy, the OECD review Slovenia: Towards a Strategic and Efficient State (2012[11]) made several recommendations for improving inter-ministerial co-ordination in Slovenia (Box 3.2).

Action 4

The government should improve awareness, skills, recognition and resourcing for co-operation in the public administration, to strengthen co-operation within, between and by ministries.

The government should survey the individuals working on adult learning within ministries, agencies and existing cross-sectoral bodies, in order to assess and address gaps in skills, recognition and resourcing for co-operation. In light of the survey results, the government should: raise awareness about the importance of co-operation in adult learning, improve opportunities for developing skills for co-operation in the public administration, strengthen requirements for and recognition of effective co-operation, and resource co-operation efforts effectively. While focused on adult learning, this action should contribute to the achievement of the SRS 2030 goals for “effective governance and high-quality public service”.

This action should build civil servants’ capacity for: strategic governance (Actions 1 and 2), integrating diverse information into decision making (Action 3) and adopting a user-centred approach in adult learning (Action 6). The government should also consider extending learning opportunities to municipalities and public providers to support their role in adult learning (Action 5).

Specifically, the government should:

1. 1. Undertake a survey of individuals in ministries, agencies, co-ordination bodies and expert councils involved in adult learning to establish a baseline estimate of: the current resources (people, time and funding) devoted to inter-ministerial co-ordination, stakeholder engagement and expert advice for adult learning policy; and whether the skills and training of staff involved in these co-operation efforts are sufficient.

   1. a. In light of the results of this baseline survey, the relevant ministries, agencies, bodies and councils should document good practice for resourcing inter-ministerial co-ordination, stakeholder engagement and expert advice in adult learning, and advise the government on current resource gaps/constraints and how they might be filled. A whole-of-government, cross-sectoral body for adult learning could be responsible for preparing this advice (Action 2).

2. 2. Raise awareness and promote understanding of:

   1. a. The benefits of co-ordination and engagement for adult learning policy – such as minimising overlaps and gaps in adult learning services, increasing the likelihood of successful implementation, better meeting the needs of individual adults, capitalising on the distinct strengths of each sector, facilitating cross-sectoral learning, generating complementarities between related policies – and how these can improve adult learning participation, outcomes and/or cost-effectiveness.

   2. b. Good practice examples of co-operation from Slovenia and abroad. For example, from the field of adult learning, cross-sectoral initiatives that include an element of adult skills and learning (e.g. the S4) or related policy fields (such as labour, social or economic policy).

3. 3. Promote and expand learning and development opportunities for the civil servants involved in adult learning policy, incorporating:

   1. a. An initial “learning needs” assessment: this should involve a survey of staff perceptions about whether they have the time, skills, and learning and development opportunities required to effectively engage in inter-ministerial co-ordination and stakeholder engagement in policy making.

   2. b. A broad range of skills, such as policy analysis and advice (including user-centred design), managing networks (including skills for inter-ministerial co-ordination, negotiation and conflict resolution), citizen engagement and service delivery (such as co-creation), and commissioning and contracting services (e.g. through public tenders).

   3. c. A broad range of methods, such as practice-based, on-the-job and online training; mentoring and coaching; networking; and peer learning and mobility assignments.

   4. d. Municipalities: the central government, in consultation with municipalities, should extend this awareness and learning initiative to municipal staff involved in adult learning.

   5. e. Existing national and EU funding sources: for example, any available funds for technical assistance and capacity building.

4. 4. Strengthen individual and team responsibility and recognition for co-operation, by:

   1. a. Requiring individuals and teams to co-operate. After evaluating and refining the current Management by Objectives pilot in the MJU, the government should apply this system to the teams and/or individual staff in the central public administration involved in adult learning policy. This system should include specific performance objectives for inter-ministerial co-ordination and stakeholder engagement.

   2. b. Recognising individuals and teams for effective co-operation. Effective inter-ministerial co-ordination and stakeholder engagement should be systematically recognised in performance appraisals and become one criterion for promotions. This could remain informal, or formalised in the Decree on Promoting Officials to Titles or the Rules on the Promotion of Public Employees into Salary Grades.

Co-operation between ministries and municipalities

The ministries involved in adult learning and Slovenia’s 212 municipalities interact through various, mainly indirect, mechanisms. These include:

• The e-Democracy online portal: the portal gives all sectors, including municipalities, 30 days to comment on all legislative proposals.

• Municipal associations: the Local Self-Government Act established associations to represent municipalities’ interests in national policy development, and requires the government to consult these associations on policies of relevance to municipalities. There are currently three associations in Slovenia: the Association of Municipalities and Towns of Slovenia (Skupnost občin) (SOS), the Association of Municipalities of Slovenia (Združenje občin Slovenije) (ZOS) and the Association of City Municipalities of Slovenia (Združenje mestnih občin Slovenije) (ZMOS).

• The AE Body: one municipal association, the SOS, is currently a member (municipalities are not represented in the SSIO).

• The National Council: Slovenia’s upper parliamentary chamber (the National Council) includes 22 representatives of local interests.

• The Local Self-Government Service at the MJU: the MJU’s responsibilities include the system of local self-government in Slovenia. It co-operates with the municipal associations, and provides professional assistance to municipalities to help them comply with and implement regulations.

• Regional development agencies (Regionalne razvojne agencije) (RRAs)): although Slovenia does not have a regional level of government, it does have 12 RRAs that seek balanced development across regions (OECD, 2016[21]). Each RRA has established a Committee for Human Resources. Each RRA prepares a Regional Development Plan (Regionalni razvojni program) (RRP), and 11 out of the 12 RRPs include goals/targets for adult learning (see Box 3.7 for one example). RRAs are required to submit their RRPs to the Ministry of Economic Development and Technology (Ministrstvo za gospodarski razvoj in tehnologijo) (MGRT), and both are required to ensure alignment of the RRPs with the SRS 2030 and other national policies.

• Regional adult learning service providers: the ministries involved in adult learning also engage with local actors indirectly via their own agencies. Providers of adult learning services such as LUs (MIZŠ), MICs (MIZŠ), KOCs (MDDSZ) and Employment Service Offices “represent” and implement the central government’s priorities and policies at the local/regional level. They also “represent” and convey local/regional level needs in national forums such as working groups for legislative development, and the AE Body.

The development of the new ZIO-1 Act provides a recent example of how some of these mechanisms are utilised in adult learning policy making (Box 3.6).

Co-operation between local actors

Municipalities and the other local and regional actors involved in adult learning (providers, social partners and others) can potentially co-operate with each other through the mechanisms described above. These include:

• Regional adult learning service providers: providers of adult learning services – LUs, MICs, KOCs, etc. – also serve as co-ordination points for local and regional adult learning activities. Lifelong learning centres (Centri vseživljenjskega učenja) previously played this role in the period 2008 to 2013.

• RRAs: the Committees for Human Resources comprise regional representatives of LUs, secondary schools, business chambers, NGOs, and the Employment Service of Slovenia (Zavod Republike Slovenije za zaposlovanje) (ZRSZ), all of whom are stakeholders in adult learning.

• Regional networks: Slovenia’s 12 Councils of Regions (Svet regij), each of which comprises mayors from within the region, allow mayors to share information and identify opportunities for co-operation, including in adult learning.

• Municipal associations: Slovenia’s municipal associations implement joint development projects, and organise seminars, workshops, conferences and working meetings on priority issues facing municipalities, which could include inter-municipal co-ordination in adult learning.

• Professional associations: Slovenia’s five professional associations of adult education providers could potentially facilitate partnerships, consortiums and other forms of co-operation between providers.

Co-operation between ministries and municipalities

Despite the important and growing role of municipalities in adult learning, there is limited co-ordination and co-operation between ministries and municipalities for developing and implementing adult learning policy.

Ministries could engage more effectively with municipalities during the design and drafting of adult learning-related legislation and policy. Representatives of the ministries participating in the National Skills Strategy Action Phase cited no direct lines of communication with municipalities. The SOS is the only municipal association involved in any of the national cross-sectoral bodies for adult learning (the AE Body, SSIO and SSPSI; see Chapter 2). Neither municipalities nor their associations were involved in the development of the ReNPIO (see Chapter 2). Ministries and municipalities did interact in various ways during the development of the 2018 ZIO-1 Act (Box 3.6). However, some municipal representatives, such as the ZMOS, were not included in the MIZŠ’ direct engagement, and have been critical of the process.

The central government is not making full use of municipalities’ insights about local/regional needs, and the challenges and opportunities municipalities face in implementing national adult learning laws/policies locally.

The ReNPIO and the municipal AL Plans could be more closely connected. The ReNPIO does not articulate the role of municipalities in contributing to the achievement of its goals and targets. By mid-2018, many municipalities still did not have an AL Plan. The existing AL Plans are highly variable in their level of detail and their coherence with the ReNPIO. Most of the AL Plans that are publicly available describe their local LU and co-financed projects. With a few exceptions (e.g. the Municipality of Ljubljana) they do not include the other elements required in the ZIO-1 Act: annual targets and indicators, priority areas and associated actions, specifying the actors responsible for implementation, and how implementation will be monitored. The MIZŠ needs an effective process to monitor and enforce the implementation of the AL Plans.

Co-operation between ministries and municipalities is challenging because of the large number of municipalities and their limited engagement capacity. Slovenia has 10.3 municipalities per 100 000 inhabitants, which is higher than in most unitary countries including Latvia (6.1), Estonia (6.0) and Ireland (0.7) (OECD, 2018[26]). Municipalities, especially smaller ones, may simply lack the human resources required to directly engage with ministries. Some municipalities have a social policy officer in charge of educational and social programmes and expenditure. However, some representatives of municipalities involved in this project stated that, because these roles are quite broad, these officers have limited capacity to engage with specific national policies. Some social policy officers consulted during this project were not aware of the ZIO-1 Act until after its enactment.

Despite these challenges, effective co-operation between ministries and representatives of municipalities will be essential if Slovenia is to effectively tailor its national policies to local/regional needs, and if municipalities are to help realise national goals for adult learning.

Co-operation between local actors

Several stakeholders participating in the National Skills Strategy Action Phase stated that co-operation between actors at the local level is a strong point of Slovenia’s adult learning system. Regional adult learning-related centres (LUs, MICs, KOCs, etc.) do act as hubs for co-operation between providers, municipalities, local employers, social partners and others. MICs, for example, connect learners of different ages and education levels, researchers, mentors, local companies, chambers and their local communities (for an example, see Box 3.11). However, participating stakeholders considered that local and regional co-operation in adult learning could be made more systematic, in order to harness the resources, knowledge and capacity of multiple municipalities and stakeholders.

No municipalities have availed themselves of the option to develop joint AL Plans with other municipalities under the 2018 ZIO-1 Act. Slovenia’s Education White Paper (Krek and Metljak, 2011[10]) specifically identified the need for regional strategies and annual plans for adult learning.

Municipalities lack a culture of co-operation and of joint service provision, and there are few examples of municipalities entering into partnerships with each other for adult learning. Indeed, some representatives of municipalities participating in this project stated that municipalities typically consider that the costs and complexity of inter-municipal partnerships outweigh the benefits. The perceived and objective reasons for this need to be better understood and overcome if partnerships are to become more systematic.

Municipalities and local stakeholders are often unaware of the potential for, or successful examples of local and regional partnerships in adult learning. While the Slovenian Institute for Adult Education (Andragoški center Republike Slovenije) (ACS) has an established awards programme for success stories and good practice in adult learning, this does not currently focus on local and regional partnerships. There is a need for greater recognition of successful local and regional partnerships in adult learning (as in Jesenice, Box 3.10) and dissemination of these examples to inspire local and regional co-operation.

The RRAs and Regional Councils of Mayors do not appear to be facilitating regional partnerships for adult learning. This partly reflects the fact that their remits are much wider than adult learning. Adult learning does not appear to be high on the agenda of the Regional Councils of Mayors. Slovenia’s LLL Strategy cited the need for regional authorities to co-fund LLL services (Jelenc, 2007[9]), while Slovenia’s Education White Paper (Krek and Metljak, 2011[10]) identified the need for municipal and/or inter-municipal management structures for adult learning.

Although public funding for adult learning in Slovenia is almost entirely tender-based, ministries are not using tenders to spur local or regional co-operation. Currently, national tenders do not include a standard clause to prioritise or otherwise reward partnerships between providers, municipalities, employers or social partners at the local or regional levels.

Previous strategies and studies have made recommendations to improve co-operation between the central and municipal governments, and between local actors for adult learning (Box 3.8).

Co-operation between ministries and municipalities

In the Netherlands, adult learning is co-ordinated through Regional Education Centres. The centres aim to increase overall access to adult learning opportunities, and achieve the central government’s goal of increasing the educational attainment of minority and underprivileged groups. Through these centres, municipalities are responsible for providing education which will meet the demands of their communities, including vulnerable groups. State funding is allotted to municipalities on the basis of the number of adults, including vulnerable adults in the municipality. The municipalities then have the autonomy to sign contracts on the basis of need with local providers for adult education through the Regional Education Centres (Desjardins, 2017[28]).

In Lithuania, municipalities have major responsibilities for implementing adult learning policy. They are accountable to central government and receive support from it (Box 3.9).

Co-operation between local actors

In the municipality of Jesenice in north-west Slovenia, the LU, municipal government, local employers and the local small-business chamber co-operate to design, deliver and finance adult learning services tailored to local needs (Box 3.10).

The MIC in Velenje serves as a hub for adults and businesses from the local and neighbouring municipalities to undertake technology-oriented training and projects (Box 3.11).

Denmark and Germany have taken a systematic approach to facilitating regional partnerships in adult learning (Box 3.12).

Action 5

The central government and municipalities should co-ordinate more effectively to ensure coherence between national and local adult learning policies and programmes. Municipalities and other local actors should strengthen their co-operation to improve the relevance, impact and cost-effectiveness of adult learning services.

Municipalities and regional development agencies should actively contribute to Actions 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8, and ensure that their plans and activities are aligned with the national master plan (Action 1). Furthermore, municipalities, regional development agencies and service providers should use regional processes (such as Regional Councils of Mayors and RRAs) to identify and realise opportunities for partnerships in adult learning.

In addition to including local and regional stakeholders in Actions 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8, ministries should use public tenders to reward local and regional partnerships, and the ACS should recognise and widely publicise successful examples of such partnerships.

More specifically:

1. 1. To improve co-operation between ministries and municipalities:

   1. a. Ministries of the central government should:

      1. i. include representatives of municipalities and regions in Actions 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8, and consider extending co-operation-oriented training opportunities to municipal staff responsible for adult learning (see Action 4)

      2. ii. invite representatives of Slovenia’s Municipal Associations, Regional Councils of Mayors and/or RRAs to join the expanded AE Body (Action 2)

      3. iii. develop ways to more proactively and directly reach out to municipalities to keep them well informed about developments in national adult learning policy, including proposals to amend or enact legislation

      4. iv. monitor the implementation and impacts of new provisions for municipalities in the ZIO-1 Act (2018), including for municipal annual plans for adult education.

   2. b. Municipalities and regional development agencies should:

      1. i. actively contribute to Actions 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8

      2. ii. ensure that their plans and activities are aligned with the national master plan (Action 1). Specifically, municipalities and RRAs should review, discuss and update their Annual Plans for Adult Learning and RRPs respectively, to ensure they contribute to achieving the goals of the next adult learning master plan (Action 1).

2. 2. To improve co-operation in adult learning at the subnational level, between local and regional actors:

   1. a. Local and regional actors (municipalities, providers, employers, social partners, non-government organisations and others) should raise the profile of adult learning in existing regional bodies such as Regional Councils of Mayors and/or RRAs, or develop a new regional body for adult learning. The selected body should identify and realise opportunities for partnerships (co-design, co-funding and/or co-delivery) to improve participation, outcomes and/or cost-effectiveness in adult learning.

   2. b. Municipalities should pilot joint municipal annual plans for adult education, underpinned by joint funding, to harness the resources, expertise and networks of multiple municipalities, and facilitate inter-municipal capacity building.

   3. c. The central government should use public tenders to reward and encourage local and regional partnerships in the delivery of adult learning services, for example by making partnerships one criterion for selecting providers.

   4. d. The ACS, in consultation with the Institute of the Republic of Slovenia for Vocational Education and Training (Center Republike Slovenije za poklicno izobraževanje) (CPI) and other relevant bodies, should identify, publicly recognise and disseminate examples of successful local and regional partnerships in delivering adult learning.

Engaging stakeholders in policy making

Representatives of trade unions and employer associations in the Economic and Social Council (Ekonomsko-socialni svet) (ESS) can review and make proposals for government policy, including adult learning-related policy (see Chapter 2). The ESS has 15 permanent members (5 each from employers, employees and government) and can invite other ministries and experts to discuss specific topics as needed. The ESS produces opinions, position papers, proposals and recommendations on the various policy issues, which it submits to the relevant ministry, the government, parliament and/or other institutions concerned. The ESS’ Expert Committee on the Organisation of the State and Public Affairs covers issues related to legal safety, education and training, and health. For example, it discussed creating a public network of adult education providers in 2015 and 2016. Although the decisions of the ESS are binding for its members, there are no legal sanctions for not following the opinion of the ESS.

Stakeholder representatives in the SSIO and the AE Body can discuss, share information on and provide advice to the MIZŠ on adult learning policy and programmes (see Chapter 2). The SSIO includes 14 members, 8 of whom are appointed by stakeholders (employer associations, trade unions, adult education NGOs and associations). The AE Body comprises 24 members, 15 of whom represent public institutes, expert councils, adult learning providers, business chambers and trade unions, and municipalities (one association).

The CPI co-operates with chambers, employers’ associations, professional associations, NGOs, trade unions and other ministries in developing the National Qualification Framework. These stakeholders can initiate new professional standards and catalogues, provide incentives to higher education institutions to offer professional qualifications, and propose members of sectoral committees for professional standards.

Slovenia’s annual National Conference on Adult Education (Letni posvet o izobraževanju odraslih) provides an opportunity for ministries, agencies and stakeholders to discuss current issues in the adult learning system. Attendees include participants from the nine ministries involved in the ReNPIO, researchers, the ACS, the CPI and adult education providers, among others. Plenary lectures, practical workshops and roundtables allow government, providers and stakeholders to reflect on the goals achieved in the past year, and discuss challenges and directions for the coming year. Since 2010, the conference has attracted between 170 and 300 participants each year.

As noted earlier, Slovenia’s e-Democracy online forum gives stakeholders 30-60 days to comment on proposed legislation. According to the government Rules of Procedure, ministries must justify in their submission to cabinet why they have not accepted stakeholders’ comments.

Ministries can establish cross-sectoral working groups for legislative change and policy development, which can further make use of the mechanisms described above. For example, in 2016 the Minister of Education, Science and Sports formed a working group to prepare the new ZIO-1 Act (Box 3.6). Various stakeholders had opportunities to provide feedback on the draft act in the working group’s co-ordination meetings, the SSIO and the AE Body, the National Conference on Adult Education and the annual meeting of headmasters of secondary schools. In addition, 30 individuals and institutions provided comments on the proposed act through the e-Democracy online portal.

Engaging stakeholders in programme design and delivery

Some mechanisms exist to ensure formal education and training programmes are tailored to adults’ needs. The law requires various adjustments be made to formal education programmes for adults, and provides for validation of adults’ prior learning (Box 3.14).

Slovenia’s National Vocational Qualifications (NVQ) system allows adults to have their vocational skills validated with a NVQ certificate, without undertaking further education. The MDDSZ oversees the system and has established ten sectoral committees of experts to establish occupational standards, defining the content, knowledge, skills and competences for vocational qualifications. Sectoral committees also prepare NVQ catalogues, which define the process for validating adults’ prior learning against an occupational standard. This process allows adults to obtain an NVQ certificate, demonstrating a formal level of professional competence in an occupation (Košmrlj, 2016[39]; Drofenik, 2017[40]).

The ACS and individual providers design non-formal education and training specifically for adults, and as such make relatively more use of flexible delivery – distance learning, e-learning and blended learning, modular learning and credit-based qualifications – than in formal education.

Few mechanisms exist for public agencies and providers to engage stakeholders in programme design and delivery. Public agencies and providers typically engage with service users to design and/or deliver adult learning programmes via formal bodies like management boards, or on an ad hoc basis.

Providers of education and training can engage with stakeholders through their councils or management boards. The ZIO-1 Act (2018) stipulates that LU’s councils must include two employee representatives and one adult learner representative. Higher vocational colleges’ management bodies also include representatives of students and employers. The Higher Education Act 1993 stipulates that the students must make up one-fifth of the membership of the senates of universities, individual faculties and independent higher education institutions (Eurydice, 2018[41]).

Public agencies and providers co-operate with stakeholders on an ad hoc basis to design and deliver adult learning programmes. For example, the MDDSZ’s KOCs ran a programme of Lifelong Career Guidance for Companies and Employees. Companies first assessed their needs and the needs of workers before working with the KOC to identify or develop appropriately tailored training programmes (Box 3.18). Furthermore, the ZRSZ has partnered with employers to deliver 1-3 month “on-the-job” training for adults registered as unemployed for at least three months. The LU Slovenska Bistrica gathers information on the skills needs of local companies by holding employer forums twice a year, and tailoring programmes to meet these needs.

Engaging stakeholders in policy making

Slovenia has a range of formal processes to enable stakeholders to contribute to adult learning policy making. Stakeholder engagement occurs through the ESS, the SSIO, the AE Body, working groups for legislative proposals, and the e-Democracy online consultation portal. However, government engagement with stakeholders in policy making for adult learning could be deepened.

The ESS, Slovenia’s foremost tripartite body for policy dialogue, rarely discusses adult learning policy. The ESS has a strong focus on labour market and health policies, and frequently discusses issues related to wage setting, pensions, health and safety, and social insurance, but it has only discussed adult learning policy once in its last 65 meetings (ESS, 2018[42]). This is a missed opportunity for Slovenia’s most senior representatives of employers and employees to contribute to developing adult learning policy that meets the needs of workers, businesses and society.

The SSIO and the AE Body, Slovenia’s national cross-sectoral bodies for adult learning, do not include representatives of target groups of adult learners. There are a range of associations in Slovenia that could potentially represent adult learners who are unemployed, older, from specific cultural groups, disabled, etc. in policy discussions. However, these associations and the adults they represent are not members of these bodies.

Furthermore, the SSIO and AE Body give the stakeholders involved limited influence over adult learning policy making. The SSIO is currently limited to an advisory role to the MIZŠ. It does not advise the other ministries involved in adult learning, such as the MDDSZ. Nor does it include all ministries with legislated responsibility for adult learning. In addition, neither the SSIO nor the AE Body have any decision-making capacity in adult learning policy making. Any agreements reached between government representatives and stakeholders in these bodies are not binding for the members or the MIZŠ.

Some ministries are less likely than others to form cross-sectoral working groups when developing legislation or policy proposals, giving stakeholders less opportunity to contribute to their adult learning-related policies. For example, representatives of the MIZŠ involved in this project reported that their ministry establishes working groups for all legislative proposals, as it did for the development of the 2018 ZIO Act (Box 3.6). Representatives of the MDDSZ reported that their ministry occasionally forms such working groups. This may partly reflect variations in staff capacity to establish and co-ordinate such groups (Action 4).

While not focused on adult learning specifically, a previous OECD review made recommendations to improve government engagement with stakeholders in policy making in Slovenia (Box 3.15).

Engaging stakeholders in programme design and delivery

There are some promising examples in Slovenia of public agencies and providers – the ZRSZ, MDDSZ and the LU Slovenska Bistrica (see Box 3.19) – involving end users in the design and delivery of adult learning services. However, the mechanisms and practices for doing so are limited and largely ad hoc. A 2010 study involving interviews with seven providers of adult education and training in Slovenia (four formal, two non-formal and one prison) revealed that none of them involved representatives of target groups in preparing education programmes and courses (Ivančič, Špolar and Radovan, 2010[27]). Public agencies and providers could engage end users more systematically in the design of adult learning services to ensure they better meet users’ needs, and help improve participation in adult learning.

Slovenia does not have an established model for involving target groups of adults in the design of adult learning services. The ACS develops methodologies, guidance and training on a range of issues, such as self-evaluation for providers. However, to date the ACS has not developed resources to support a user-centred approach to designing the curriculum, andragogy and assessment of adult education and training programmes. This is largely left up to the providers of non-formal programmes. Developing such a model and support services would appear to be within the ACS’ current expertise and remit.

The representatives of learners and employers included in educational institutions’ councils and boards do not appear to be involved in the details of programme design. These councils and boards typically focus on the strategic and administrative issues facing the institution. The learners and employers represented on these boards, however, may be well placed to help develop processes for including end users in programme design.

Neither the SSIO nor the AE Body have facilitated partnerships between public agencies/providers and stakeholders to design, deliver or fund adult learning services. A cross-sectoral oversight body with greater decision-making capacity and accountability (Action 2) could facilitate such partnerships more effectively.

Formal education and training programmes for adults are still just adapted versions of regular programmes for youth, and could be further tailored to the needs of adults. A study by Ivančič, Špolar and Radovan (2010[27]) noted that formal adult education for adults is carried out as irregular formal education, but found that private providers invest more in innovative delivery than public schools.

Slovenia has no single framework or institution for validating adults’ prior non-formal and informal learning. Validation is most developed under the NVQ system, and the process for validating vocational skills is relatively centralised at the national level. However, only 836 adults received a NVQ certificate in 2016, which was the lowest number since 2012. The validation system is completely decentralised in higher education, and performed individually in each school or department (Košmrlj, 2016[39]).

The ACS and ministries involved in adult learning only monitor the supply and uptake of flexible adult learning programmes to a limited extent. They collect limited data on adults’ uptake of flexible programmes such as distance learning, e-learning and blended learning, modular learning, and credit-based qualifications, in formal and non-formal education. With the exception of the NVQ system, no data are collected on the extent to which providers of formal education and training are validating adults’ prior learning and shortening the duration of programmes. Policy makers are therefore not sufficiently monitoring whether educational institutions are doing enough to adjust their programmes to meet the needs of adult learners. Slovenia also lacks reliable information about the outcomes (personal, employment and social) being achieved by adult learning programmes and providers and has little ability to monitor them. This limits the ability of programme designers to assess how well the needs of adult learners are being met, and improve their programmes in response (Action 3).

Several participants in this project saw the potential benefits of involving end users in the design of adult learning services. In the past, there have been differing opinions within the MIZŠ about this – some saying it is not feasible in formal education, and others saying it is already a reality for some providers (Ivančič, Špolar and Radovan, 2010[27]). Should a user-centred design approach be implemented more systematically in Slovenia, several participants stated that it would require new skills and training for staff of public agencies and providers (see Action 4). This could include, for example, training in ethnographic methods and action research approaches to work closely with service users, and gain a deep understanding of their needs (OECD, 2012[11]). The Administration Academy does not currently offer such training.

Previous strategies and studies have made recommendations to improve engagement with adult learning stakeholders in programme design and delivery in Slovenia (Box 3.16).

Action 6

In policy making, the ministries, employers’ associations and trade unions represented on the ESS should more frequently discuss policies related to adult skills and lifelong learning, and provide opinions to the government.

In programme design, ministries, agencies, publicly funded providers, adult learners and employers should work together more effectively to design adult learning services that meet users’ needs. The government should collect better data on, monitor and ensure the sufficient supply of flexible education and training programmes and validation of prior learning for adults. In particular, these efforts should focus on the formal education system – schools, vocational colleges and higher education institutions. Ministries, agencies and publicly funded providers should more systematically implement a user-centred approach by involving target groups of adults and employers in the design of adult learning services.

The new outcomes evaluation model for adult learning (Action 3) should seek to measure users’ satisfaction with the design and flexibility of adult learning programmes. The government should offer civil servants and staff of public adult learning providers targeted training in user-centred design approaches (Action 4).

Specifically, in order to strengthen engagement with stakeholders in adult learning:

1. 1. The ministries, employers’ associations and trade unions represented on the ESS should more frequently:

   1. a. discuss the adult learning policies of the MIZŠ (such as the ZIO-1 Act), the MDDSZ (such as ALMPs), and the other ministries involved in implementing the ReNPIO

   2. b. discuss the relevance of adult skills and learning to other issues on the ESS agenda, such as the Social Agreement, collective agreements, labour market policy, economic and social development

   3. c. provide opinions to the government on adult learning and related policies, and the potential role of social partners in implementing these policies.

2. 2. The government should monitor the supply and uptake of flexible education and training programmes available to adults:

   1. a. including distance learning, online (e-learning) and blended learning, modular learning, credit-based qualifications and validation of non-formal and informal learning

   2. b. for both formal and non-formal programmes

   3. c. at all publicly funded providers, from upper secondary schools providing second-chance programmes, to short-cycle higher vocational colleges, higher education institutions and others.

3. 3. Ministries, agencies and publicly funded education and training providers should systematically adopt a user-centred approach, directly involving the groups of adults and employers targeted by adult learning services in designing those services. To facilitate this:

   1. a. The ACS should develop guidelines for adult learning service providers on how to implement a user-centred design approach to developing adult learning programmes (curriculum, teaching methods etc.) and services. These guidelines should also collate good practice examples of user-centred design already implemented by the ACS, LUs and the ZRSZ.

   2. b. Providers of adult education and training should use the learner and employer representatives on their councils and boards to contribute to, and/or help establish effective processes for, involving target groups of adults in designing curricula, teaching methods and other features of their programmes.

   3. c. The new outcomes-focused model of evaluation for adult learning providers and programmes (Action 3) should measure, among other things, user satisfaction with the flexibility, curriculum, teaching methods and other features of adult learning programmes.

   4. d. The government, in consultation with the ACS, should introduce training opportunities for civil servants and staff of public providers involved in designing adult learning programmes to develop user-centred design skills (Action 4). This could include, for example, ethnographic methods and action research approaches for working closely with service users and gaining a deep understanding of their needs.