European Education, vol. 46, no. 1 (Spring 2014), pp. 34–54. © 2014 M.E. Sharpe, Inc. All rights reserved. Permissions: www.copyright.com ISSN 1056–4934 (print)/ISSN 1944–7086 (online) DOI: 10.2753/EUE1056-4934460102 ELENI PROKOU Adult Education/Lifelong Learning Policies in Greece in the Early 2010s Influences from European Education Policy and National Practices This article argues that adult education/lifelong learning policies in Greece, as these are expressed by law 3879/2010 “Development of Lifelong Learning and Other Provisions,” have the characteristics of the “statist” model of lifelong learning in Europe, namely strong governmental control and centralization. However, there are also characteristics of the “social partnership” model: regulations through a legal framework and stronger involvement of social partners and local government. Finally, under the influences of European education policy, a special emphasis in Greek policies is placed on the issues of accreditation/quality assurance and the formation of a qualifications framework. These issues are dominant in the market-driven systems of lifelong learning, are consistent with the model of “voluntary partnership,” and stress the individualization of the responsibility for learning. Efforts for the reorganization of adult education/lifelong learning in Greece have been initiated by law 3879/2010, “Development of Lifelong Learning and Other Provisions” (Official Gazette of the Hellenic Republic, 2010). This law aims at the development of lifelong learning for socioeconomic ends, through the recognition of alternative educational routes, a network of lifelong Eleni Prokou is an assistant professor of education policy at the Department of Social Policy, Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences, Athens, Greece. Her research focuses on the analysis and interpretation of higher education and adult education/lifelong learning policies in a comparative and international perspective. Address for correspondence: eprokou@panteion.gr. 34 SPRING 2014 35 learning bodies/agencies, and quality/transparency assurance. It introduces regulations in lifelong learning both within and beyond the formal educational system. A special emphasis is placed on informal learning and the recognition and validation of its results. The article examines the extent to which Greek lifelong learning policies of the early 2010s are influenced by European Union (EU) policies and/or other lifelong learning models in Europe, taken into consideration that in the 1990s/2000s, lifelong learning policies in Greece presented the major characteristics of the “statist” model. Using content analysis of the aforementioned law, this article discusses the findings within the theoretical framework that draws from the literature on the main lifelong learning models in Europe, as well as certain EU policies, which promote a market-led model of lifelong learning. This article argues that recent adult education/lifelong learning policies in Greece—as these have been introduced by the aforementioned law—still present the characteristics of the “statist” model of lifelong learning in Europe, namely, relatively strong governmental control and centralization. However, characteristics of the “social partnership” model are also identified, such as, regulations through a legal framework and stronger involvement of social partners and local government. Finally, under the influences of European education policy, a special emphasis is placed on the issues of accreditation/ quality assurance and the formation of a qualifications framework, characterizing the market-driven systems of lifelong learning (consistent with the model of “voluntary partnership”) and stressing the individualization of the responsibility for learning. To use Cowen’s (2009) expression, Greek lifelong learning policies seem to be direct “transfers” (movements of educational ideas or practices in supranational or transnational or international space: the “space-gate” moment) and “translations” (shape-shiftings of educational institutions or interpretations of educational ideas, which routinely occur with the transfer in space: “the chameleon process”) of both the EU policy initiatives and educational practices of other countries (p. 323). This article is divided into four sections. The first section explores lifelong learning policies/models in European regions, as these have been elaborated in the relevant literature. The second section examines the lifelong learning policies of the EU, suggesting that they promote a market-driven model of lifelong learning. The third section examines Greek lifelong learning policies of the 1990s/2000s in order to highlight policy continuity. The fourth section analyzes the Greek policies of the early 2010s (particularly those promoted by law 3879/2010) and seeks to illustrate both influences from the EU lifelong learning policies and influences from other models/types of lifelong learning. 36 EUROPEAN EDUCATION Lifelong learning policies in European regions According to the relevant literature, there are three models of lifelong learning in Europe with regard to participation of social partners and the levels of government involvement and regulation: the demand-led model of “voluntary partnership,” the more formalized “social partnership” model, and the more “statist” model (Green, 2002, p. 619). In the “voluntary partnership” model, the learning society offers opportunities for the creation of networks and partnerships, facilitated by new technologies. Educational organizations are interested in developing and investing in profitable learning environments. It is a market-driven model in which individuals are responsible for their learning and, as the UK practice has shown since the late 1980s with the introduction of the National Vocational Qualifications, emphasis is placed on accreditation procedures (Prokou, 2008). In the labor market, employers play a central role in providing lifelong learning for individuals at work (Kwon & Daeyeon, 2011). In English-speaking countries, which are representative of this model, adult education and training are relatively widespread but highly uneven and still somewhat “voluntaristic” in their organization. This model has light levels of regulation (governments have the role of “steering”) so that the use of levies, statutory rights to training, and license to practice legislation are extremely limited (Green, 2006). The “social partnership” model promotes multiple agency and diverse stakeholders, and makes use of new technologies. Also, this model recognizes the importance of individual responsibility, but its main difference with the previous model is that the “social partnership” model stresses the limitations of the market and the importance of regulation. Another characteristic of this model is the emphasis on the role of local government seen in the efflorescence of lifelong learning supply by municipalities (e.g., the Swedish Adult Education Initiative) (Prokou, 2008). In general, there is a strengthened public–private cooperation, although the participation of state agencies is not always required (agreements among social partners alone may have an impact on lifelong learning and training policies) (Kwon & Daeyeon, 2011). In the Nordic countries, which are representative of this model, postcompulsory education and training tends to involve strong “social partnership” traditions with regard to work-based learning. It also involves high levels of public funding and a widespread use of training levies, license to practice laws, and sectoral agreements on training, as well as qualifications for occupations. Within Europe, adult learning is most prevalent in the Nordic region, where it has the most distinctive set of institutional arrangements and outcomes, including high rates of adult participation and high levels of employment (Green, 2006). Finally, the “statist” model is prevalent in Mediterranean states, which are SPRING 2014 37 characterized by a continuous dominance of a rather traditional, centralized educational system. In some cases, this model presents some of the characteristics of the “social partnership” model: high levels of regulation, democratic decision making, management through a legal framework, accredited firms that offer training, and incentives for training for both firms and individuals (Prokou, 2008). In the state-led model, postschool education and training systems often utilize social partner-based organizations to collect and distribute levies for training, although they typically frame the rights and responsibilities for training, for both employees and employers, in national law. Most postcompulsory education is typically retained in school-based programs in general or specialist vocational high schools, while apprenticeship systems are rather residual. Adult education and training provision is less developed than in Northern European countries, while levels of participation in work-based training are comparatively low (Green, 2006). Usually, the state addresses equity issues—for young, old, and low-skilled adults who are at risk of being socially excluded—and is the primary source of funds. In trying to meet individual long-term needs, in addition to reconciling the demands of a variety of interest groups, the state tries to create the required structural preconditions, promote well-designed arrangements between organizations and entities, and ensure policy coordination (through controlling bodies) and quality, as well as coherence in lifelong learning (Kwon & Daeyeon, 2011). There are also other categorizations of lifelong learning models. For instance, Schuetze & Casey (2006) distinguish between four different basic models of lifelong learning: (1) an emancipatory or social justice model, which pushes the notion of equality of opportunity and life chances through education in a democratic society (“lifelong learning for all”); (2) a cultural model in which lifelong learning is a process of each individual’s life itself, aiming at the fulfilment of life and self-realization (“lifelong learning for selffulfillment”); (3) an open society model, in which lifelong learning is seen as an adequate learning system for developed, multicultural, and democratic countries (“lifelong learning for all who want, and are able, to participate”); and (4) a human capital model, in which lifelong learning connotes continuous work-related training and skill development to meet the needs of the economy and employers for a qualified, flexible, and adaptable workforce (“lifelong learning for employment”). None of these models exists in its pure form in any country, nor is it pursued as such. There are rather hybrid forms in various countries with different emphases on one or several of these principal directions. Nevertheless, in most countries, there is a clear shift from the emancipatory-utopian or social justice concept to a market-oriented model with a primary objective of making continuous training and learning of workers a requirement for employability. This shift to a market-oriented model is consistent with the EU policies in lifelong learning. 38 EUROPEAN EDUCATION EU lifelong learning policies: Toward a market-driven model Since as early as the 2000s, lifelong learning policies of the EU have been exerting influences on national education and training systems to converge toward a market-driven model, in particular through policies such as the promotion of the European Qualifications Framework (EQF). The EQF is at the center of the EU’s policies for lifelong learning. It promotes accreditation and quality assurance, as well as the individualization of responsibility for learning—issues reflecting mostly the demand-led model of “voluntary partnership.” It is also closely associated with the promotion of vocational education and training (VET), for employability reasons, in the conditions of economic globalization. The issues of accreditation and quality assurance are associated with the individualization of the responsibility for learning, but also with the replacement of adult education by lifelong learning. As Jarvis (2007) has argued, over the last third of the twentieth century, the global forces have stridently demanded a more educated and continually educated workforce. Adult education has been replaced by lifelong learning, reflecting the changes that advanced capitalism has been demanding. Since the early 1990s, lifelong learning in the form of VET has been promoted because of the economic dimension of globalization, which has generated the so-called “learning society,” a flexible and open society that meets the needs stemming from the knowledge economy and the market. In turn, “lifelong learning” stresses the flexible preparation of the workforce, while the individual becomes responsible for choosing from a range of learning environments in accordance with the emerging needs of the market (Prokou, 2009). As far as the European Commission (EC) is concerned, the principle of lifelong learning is one of employment policies and “continuous re-skilling of the workforce,” with associated tax and other incentives, the objective of this being the “common economic health” of member states. The focus is strongly on training, so that it is no longer education but learning itself that is being incorporated into economic and employment policy (Griffin, 2006). In the mid-1990s, according to the White Paper (1995), the “modern route” to employability was estimated to be about integration within networks that cooperate, educate, train, and learn. These networks were defined as institutional networks (education and training establishments cooperating with families or firms) or informal networks of knowledge (adult education establishments, education cooperatives, etc.) and were associated with the formation of a “reliable accreditation system” of skills acquired either in formal education or in a less formal way (European Commission, 1995, pp. 15–16). At the beginning of the 2000s, the aspiration of the Lisbon strategy was SPRING 2014 39 for Europe to become “the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion” and, for the fulfilment of this aim, education and training were expected to play a vital role (European Parliament, 2000). Thus, the program “Education and Training in Europe: Diverse Systems, Shared Goals for 2010” was approved. Its three strategic goals were: (1) improving the quality and effectiveness of education and training systems in the EU, (2) facilitating the access of all to education and training systems, and (3) opening up education and training systems to the wider world (European Commission, 2002a, p. 8). In 2002, the Copenhagen Declaration of the European Ministers of VET and the EC set a number of priorities (until 2010): (1) strengthening the European dimension in VET; (2) increasing transparency in VET through the implementation and rationalization of information tools and networks, including the integration of existing instruments (the European CV, certificate and diploma supplements, the Common European framework of reference for language and the Europass) into a single framework; as well as strengthening policies, systems and practices that support information, guidance, and counseling in the member states, at all levels of education, training and employment, especially on issues concerning access to learning, VET, and the transferability and recognition of competences and qualifications, in order to support European citizens’ occupational and geographical mobility; (3) investigating how transparency, comparability, transferability, and recognition of competencies and/or qualifications, between different countries and at different levels, could be promoted by developing reference levels, common principles for certification, and common measures, including a credit transfer system for VET; increasing support to the development of competences and qualifications at the sectoral level; and developing a set of common principles regarding validation of nonformal and informal learning with the aim of ensuring greater compatibility among approaches in different countries and at different levels; and (4) improving quality assurance in VET (European Commission, 2002b). The development of the European Credit Transfer System for Vocational Education and Training (ECVET) began in 2002 after the Copenhagen process emphasized the need for a credit transfer system for VET. National governments and the European Parliament gave their final approval to legislation in June 2009 (European Commission, n.d.a). The ECVET, as a European instrument to support lifelong learning, the mobility of European learners, and the flexibility of learning pathways to achieve qualifications, has been in progressive implementation (European Commission, 2011). It is based on learning outcomes (statements of what a learner knows, understands, and is 40 EUROPEAN EDUCATION able to do on completion of a learning process), which are developed in the process of designing qualifications and may be acquired through a variety of learning pathways, modes of delivery (school-based, in-company, etc.), in different learning contexts (formal, nonformal, and informal) or settings (i.e., country, education and training system). Qualifications frameworks indicate the overall level of learning outcomes in a qualification. For ECVET purposes, the EQF is used as a reference for levels (European Commission, 2011). Agreed upon by European institutions in 2008, the EQF has been put in practice across Europe. Countries have been encouraged to relate their national qualifications systems to the EQF by means of designating an EQF national coordination for this purpose in each country. The EQF has been expected to act as a translation device to make national qualifications more readable across Europe, promoting workers’ and learners’ mobility between countries, and facilitating their lifelong learning. Individuals and employers would thus be able to use the EQF to better understand and compare the qualifications levels of different countries and different education and training systems (European Commission, n.d.b). More specifically, the EQF is defined as a “meta-framework” (a framework for frameworks and/or systems) enabling qualifications systems with their implicit levels or/and national and sectoral qualifications frameworks to relate to each other. In the process of implementing the EQF, each country relates its national qualifications (in terms of diplomas, certificates, or awards) to the eight EQF levels via national qualifications frameworks or the implicit levels in the national qualifications systems. In the first stage, levels of national qualifications frameworks or parts of qualifications systems are referred to the EQF levels, while in the long run, all qualifications awarded in Europe should have a reference to the EQF. The descriptors are written to cover the full range of learning outcomes, irrespective of the learning or institutional context (from basic education, through school and unskilled worker levels up to doctoral or senior professional levels). They cover both work and study situations, academic and vocational settings, initial and continuing education or training, that is, all forms of learning, formal, nonformal, and informal (European Commission, 2008). Each of the eight levels of the EQF is defined by a set of descriptors (including knowledge, skills, and competencies) indicating the learning outcomes relevant to qualifications at that level in any system of qualifications (Official Journal of the European Union, 2008). The European Parliament’s and the Council’s recommendation (as regards the relation of national qualifications systems to the EQF) has been defined as of a nonbinding nature and conformed to the principle of subsidiarity by supporting and supplementing member states’ activities by facilitating further cooperation between them to increase transparency and to promote mobility SPRING 2014 41 and lifelong learning. It is implemented in accordance with national legislation and practice (Official Journal of the European Union, 2008). National Qualifications Framework (NQF) has been promoted in Greece since the late 2000s and such a policy is closely associated with provisions for the accreditation and quality assurance of lifelong learning (found in law 3879/2010). According to the working paper for public consultation of the National Committee for the Creation of the National Qualifications Framework (2010), the NQF comprises eight levels, covering all types of qualifications (from compulsory education to higher education) and is expected to be of practical value for both employers and citizens (Hellenic Qualifications Framework, n.d.b). The National Organization for the Certification of Qualifications and Vocational Guidance (EOPPEP) now has responsibility for the development of the Hellenic Qualifications Framework, which is largely funded by the EU. By the end of 2015, a number of activities are expected to be completed, including: (1) creating a record of the titles of formal and nonformal education, along an analysis and determination of their characteristics; (2) grouping the titles corresponding to sectors of education, on the basis of certain technical specifications, as well as planning and developing qualifications types; (3) defining specialized descriptors per benchmark; and (4) developing a methodology of planning and development of learning outcomes (Hellenic Qualifications Framework, n.d.c). EOPPEP is also the National Contact Point for the Transfer of Credits (ECVET) in Greece. In the context of globalization, European education policy has thus promoted a market-driven model of lifelong learning with its emphasis on employability. Through the promotion of the EQF, accreditation/quality assurance, and the individualization of the responsibility for learning—the basic characteristics of the demand-led model of “voluntary partnership”—are central issues in European education policy. In the following two sections, the article argues that after the enactment of law no. 3879/2010 “Development of Lifelong Learning and Other Provisions,” the case of Greece contains elements of the demand-led (or market-driven) model of lifelong learning due to influences from the EU policies. Nevertheless, certain characteristics of the “social partnership” model of lifelong learning are also identified. Due to the Greek educational tradition, the basic characteristics of the “statist” model of lifelong learning are still evident. An account of adult education/lifelong learning policies in Greece in the 1990s and the 2000s Before giving a detailed description of the changes introduced by law 3879/2010, it should be noted that for the period starting from the early 42 EUROPEAN EDUCATION 1990s until the late 2000s, Greece was a typical case of the “statist” model of lifelong learning in Europe, that is, relatively strong state control associated with the tradition of a centralized educational system. During this period, state control was aided by European funding within the framework of the “semi-peripherality” of Greece in the EU. As early as the 1990s, however, the emphasis shifted to VET. In the 1990s and the 2000s, despite the decentralization of critical responsibilities at institutional level (especially in the case of continuing VET), the role of the central government was crucial, as it exerted policies and control on initial and continuing VET through controlling bodies. Initial VET was promoted through the foundation of the Vocational Training Institutions (IEK) to meet the educational needs of young people wishing to be included into the labor market. IEK were placed under the supervision of the Organization of Vocational Education and Training (OEEK), a public organization under the Ministry of Education.1 Continuing VET was promoted through the foundation of the Vocational Training Centers (KEK) in 1994. It was placed under the supervision of the National Accreditation Center of Vocational Training Structures and Accompanying Services (EKEPIS), a public organization of private law under the Ministry of Labor. This ministry supervised and planned the relevant policies through the National Council for Vocational Education and Training and Employment, while the role of EKEPIS was to accredit KEK and the training they provided, the educational programs for adult educators, and the Centers of Accompanying Services Provision and their staff. In an overall attempt to link lifelong learning policy with the general employment policy, the Peripheral Branches for Employment and the Centers for Vocational and Technical Education and Training were founded in the mid-1990s. EKEPIS also studied the needs for the creation of KEK at national, prefectural and regional levels. KEK were both public and private (although the majority were private) and they were implementing the programs announced by the Ministry of Labor. Their activities were concerned with the study of the training/educational needs of participants and the needs for certain specialties in the labor market, the design of in-service training programs for staff, and the design of training programs for the unemployed (Prokou, 2008). The Greek state supported (through funding coming mainly from EU resources) continuing VET vis-à-vis general adult education. In the 2000s, the greatest part of state funding went to the activities of training and/or promotion to employment, which were to meet the needs of the unemployed, socially vulnerable groups, and women. At least at the level of rhetoric, the dominant aim was that of employability, accompanied by the aim of social inclusion and active citizenship. Nevertheless, wide privatization of the system of continuing VET in Greece and the absence of coherent measures linking education with employment posed SPRING 2014 43 questions as to the fulfilment of the mission of fighting unemployment and social exclusion (Prokou, 2011). Although the theory about lifelong learning models in Europe concerns mainly VET, it can be argued that in Greece, centralization and strong governmental control also characterized general adult education. The latter was largely represented by the bodies of the General Secretariat of Adult Education (GSAE), a public organization under the Ministry of Education. The mission of GSAE was defined as the provision of lifelong learning to all citizens of the country (regardless of their educational or other characteristics) and to Greeks living abroad. At the national level, GSAE planned, coordinated, and implemented: (a) basic adult education (literacy courses and completion of compulsory education); (b) general adult education and training (training addressing the needs of vulnerable social groups, programs of Greek as a second language, and training in new technologies); (c) sociocultural and health/environmental education and training; (d) open and distance education and training; and (e) education and training of adult educators. GSAE implemented its policy through the Institute of Adult and Continuing Education (IDEKE), a legal entity of private law. IDEKE’s basic aim was to offer technological and scientific support to the programs of GSAE, and to implement lifelong learning actions. IDEKE supported certain bodies (but also various autonomous educational programs) of GSAE—the Second Chance Schools (SDE), the Centers for Adult Education (KEE) and the Schools for Parents. GSAE implemented its policy also through the Prefectural Committees of Adult Education (NELE) and a nationwide KEK (Prokou, 2009). Most bodies of GSAE organized courses for adults based on local needs. KEE operated in various parts of Greece, offering courses on adult literacy and numeracy, computer science, creative use of leisure time and counseling to socially vulnerable groups (Vergidis, 2005). NELE, as independent public services of the prefectures, offered courses in adult literacy and basic education, social and cultural issues, as well as vocational pretraining and training (Prokou, 2009). Continuing VET was also carried out by bodies of the public, private, and wider social sector. Ministries, bodies of public or private law, organizations, unions, and private enterprises were involved in the provision of continuing VET within KEK, with the majority representing private structures (Efstratoglou, 2004). To some extent, Greece has thus functioned as the “social partnership” model. Nevertheless, in the 1990s and the 2000s, Greece constituted mainly an example of the “statist” model of lifelong learning in Europe because of the relatively strong state control of the regulated part of the system of adult education and lifelong learning. The central government enacted policies and control on initial and continuing VET and general adult education through 44 EUROPEAN EDUCATION controlling bodies: initial VET (IEK) was under the supervision of OEEK (a public organization under the Ministry of Education), continuing VET (KEK) was under the supervision of EKEPIS (a public organization of private law under the Ministry of Labor), whilst general adult education (KEE, SDE, etc.) was under the supervision of GSAE (a public organization under the Ministry of Education). The state was the primary source of funds (albeit mainly European), the bulk of which was channeled to continuing VET to combat social exclusion of the unemployed and other vulnerable social groups. Adult education/lifelong learning policies in Greece since the beginning of the 2010s After the enactment of law 3879/2010, Greek policies continued to resemble the “statist” model of lifelong learning but they now include characteristics of new models. In the early 2010s, state control has remained quite strong, with the Ministry of Education playing a central role in planning and monitoring (through executive bodies) all forms and processes of nonformal education and lifelong learning provision. In addition, the state has remained (at least rhetorically) the main source of funds, emphasizing the importance of equity issues. Nevertheless, there are certain arrangements within this law, which are characteristic of the “social partnership” model: high levels of regulation and management through a legal framework, more democratic decision making with greater involvement of social partners in decision-making processes, further decentralization in the implementation of adult education and lifelong learning programs (by strengthening the involvement of local government), involvement of multiple agencies, and a greater diversity of lifelong learning providers, as well as more incentives for training (through widespread use of training levies, although training in the workplace is not much developed). Given EU influence, associated mainly with the introduction of the NQF, a special emphasis is placed on accreditation policies—a major characteristic of the demand-led model of “voluntary partnership.” In describing the provisions of the law no. 3879/2010, it can be argued that state control, a basic characteristic of the “statist” model, continues to be strong. While implementation of public policy is transferred to regional and municipal levels, the Ministry of Education plans and coordinates the administrative system of lifelong learning at the central level through the General Secretariat of Lifelong Learning (GSLL), formerly called GSAE. The Ministry of Education decides on matters of accreditation of nonformal education bodies, authorizing their functioning (Official Gazette of the Hellenic Republic, 2010, pp. 3404–5). Centralization, a characteristic of the “statist” model, is also visible in the GSLL function of controlling all forms of lifelong learning, SPRING 2014 45 supervising, and administering both general adult education and the National System of Vocational Education and Training and Employment, as well as developing an educational framework for all units of nonformal education. In cooperation with international and European agencies, the GSLL promotes both innovation for quality and the principles of adult education (Official Gazette of the Hellenic Republic, 2010, p. 3407), with an emphasis on the accreditation of adult educators, which is recorded in a special register kept by the National Accreditation Center for Lifelong Learning (EKEPIS) (Official Gazette of the Hellenic Republic, 2010, p. 3416). Overall, a basic aim set by the GSLL is the increased participation of adults, especially those belonging to socially vulnerable groups, and this is an emphasis on equity characterizing the “statist” model. In addition, the GSLL is responsible for the education of members of voluntary teams of civil protection, the training of staff in lifelong learning bodies, and the construction and operation of registers for educators, education and training bodies, and individuals (Official Gazette of the Hellenic Republic, 2010, p. 3407). The GSLL holds an Electronic Register for Lifelong Learning for individuals wishing to make applications, attaching Personal Lifelong Learning Coupons with the qualifications corresponding to the NQF and the certificates of attendance of nonformal education (Official Gazette of the Hellenic Republic, 2010, p. 3415). This is a policy consistent with a basic characteristic of the demand-led model of “voluntary partnership,” the individualization of the responsibility for learning, together with that of quality. Quality is evident in provisions for the accreditation of both the inputs and the outputs of nonformal education and/or informal learning. To this purpose, the GSLL cooperates with: (a) EKEPIS for the accreditation of the inputs; (b) the National Organisation for the Certification of Qualifications (EOPP) for the accreditation of the outputs; and (c) the National Center for Vocational Guidance (EKEP) (Official Gazette of the Hellenic Republic, 2010, p. 3407). EOPP, a national private agency, serves as the European network on qualifications and transparency and mobility, namely the National Coordination Point of the EQF, the National Europass Center, and the Quality Assurance National Reference Point (Official Gazette of the Hellenic Republic, 2010, p. 3410). EOPP aims at: (a) creating and developing the NQF and matching it with the EQF; (b) matching the skills acquired through formal and nonformal education, and informal learning, with the levels of the NQF; (c) creating descriptors (for knowledge, skills, competencies) corresponding to the NQF levels; (d) accrediting the outputs of nonformal education and informal learning (i.e., both the learners and the bodies accrediting the skills); (e) developing and implementing a credit transfer system for VET; (f) assuring quality; (g) contributing to the determination of the occupational rights of 46 EUROPEAN EDUCATION holders of qualifications obtained in the framework of lifelong learning (higher education excluded); (h) matching the international sectoral qualifications with the NQF; and (i) recognizing equivalence of foreign educational qualifications (higher education excluded) (Official Gazette of the Hellenic Republic, 2010, pp. 3410–11). In late 2011, EOPP was renamed EOPPEP, the latter being a single agency, having absorbed EKEPIS and EKEP along with other mergers of agencies that have taken place in Greece, dictated by spending cuts due to economic crisis. The responsibilities of these two entities were placed under the supervision of the Ministry of Education (Ministry of Education, Lifelong Learning and Religion, 2011). The central role of the Ministry of Education has already been stressed, as the GSLL controls all forms of lifelong learning. Policies of centralization and strong state control—while accompanied by an increase of the involvement of multiple agencies and a variety of lifelong learning provision—are identified in the formation of a National Lifelong Learning Network (associated with a National Lifelong Learning Program), with the GSLL cooperating with IDEKE for their scientific support (Official Gazette of the Hellenic Republic, 2010, p. 3407). The Program takes place on an annual basis and includes all actions of public policy in lifelong learning, financed wholly or partly by national or European public funds (Official Gazette of the Hellenic Republic, 2010, p. 3414). Lifelong learning has a central place within the National Strategic Reference Framework, an official text of reference for the planning of the EU funds at national level for the period 2007–13, which has been conducted in the framework of the new Strategic Approach for the Policy for Cohesion of the EU (Ministry of Economy and Finance—General Secretariat for Investments and Development, 2007). The Network consists of the governing bodies and the service providers of lifelong learning. The governing bodies are the GSLL, the units of the regions, the units of the municipalities being active in lifelong learning, EKEPIS, EOPP, EKEP (as mentioned above, these last three entities were merged into EOPPEP), and the National Center for Public Administration and Local Government (EKDDA). The providers of lifelong learning are now more numerous and diverse, including IEK, KEK, Postsecondary Education Centers and Laboratories of Liberal Studies, other public and private vocational schools, IDEKE, the National Youth Foundation and the Institute for Youth, providers of formal and nonformal general adult education (social, religious and cultural institutions), and general adult education bodies (SDE, Schools for Parents), advisory or guidance services, Employment Promotion Centers, public organizations providing nonformal education (e.g., EKDDA, nonformal education bodies set up by professional associations and chambers), providers of lifelong learning services consisting of the tertiary-level SPRING 2014 47 trade unions of workers and employers (such as the Institute of Labour and the Center for Educational Policy Development of the General Confederation of Greek Workers (GSEE), the Institute of Small Enterprises of the General Confederation of Professionals, Craftsmen, and Merchants, the Social Multicenter and the Interbalkan Institute of the Higher Administration of Civil Servants’ Unions (ADEDY), etc.), and various informal learning agencies (Official Gazette of the Hellenic Republic, 2010, pp. 3402–3). The agencies of the public, private, or social sector (e.g., schools, museums, libraries, social, educational and cultural organizations) can apply to be recognized as agencies of informal learning and enter the register kept by the GSLL (Official Gazette of the Hellenic Republic, 2010, p. 3414). The Network also consists of institutions of the formal educational system, including universities and the Lifelong Learning Institutes within them, as well as the Centers for Environmental Education (CEE). The Network also includes the training centers within companies (in case these are publicly funded) (Official Gazette of the Hellenic Republic, 2010, p. 3403). In this way, the basic characteristics of the “social partnership” model become visible through a variety of stakeholders and agencies being involved in lifelong learning activities. Overall, the functions of the Network are defined as “basic” (initial and continuing VET, and general adult education) and “supportive” (investigation of the educational and training needs of adults in relation to the needs of the labor market, provision of lifelong career guidance and counseling, accreditation of bodies, job profiles, educational programs, educators, etc.). The institutions belonging to the Network are expected to communicate and cooperate. The Network operates through: (a) the National Lifelong Learning Program; (b) the standards and specifications related to VET and general adult education (structures, contours, programs, educators); (c) the NQF; (d) the records of the Network and Europass documents; (e) means of quality assurance; (f) the Program of Implementation; (g) the programmatic contracts (between the Ministry of Education and the governing bodies, and the registered social and private providers of lifelong learning); and (h) incentives for lifelong learning (Official Gazette of the Hellenic Republic, 2010, pp. 3403–4). It should be noted that incentives for lifelong learning include a characteristic of the “social partnership” model, reflecting a widespread use of training levies and legal rights to training. In the Greek case, these incentives are about: (a) the link between nonformal education and the formal educational system (through modular accredited learning programs); (b) special study leaves (particularly to private-sector employees) for participation in lifelong learning; (c) individual training accounts (involving the employer and the employee)— from which the employee can withdraw money to meet educational needs, while the state contributes financially to these accounts—in the framework 48 EUROPEAN EDUCATION of collective bargaining agreements; (d) individual accounts of learning time for employees attending continuing VET programs; (e) the link between the evaluation of lifelong learning and its funding (Official Gazette of the Hellenic Republic, 2010, pp. 3415–16). Nevertheless, strong state control—a characteristic of the “statist” model—remains and is visible in EOPPEP (EKEPIS within the law) acquiring a more extensive role as it is the basic organization for the accreditation of the inputs to nonformal education, that is, structures, occupational profiles, programs, educators, providers of counseling services and their staff, and the authorization of these bodies. EOPPEP ensures the conditions and serves the targets included in the national, European, and cofinanced VET programs, in respect to the accreditation of the inputs to nonformal education. EOPPEP also decides on granting permission for the provision of nonformal education by the Laboratories of Liberal Studies (Official Gazette of the Hellenic Republic, 2010, p. 3409). The aim of KEK (under the Ministry of Education) is the provision of continuing VET and the implementation of accredited programs corresponding with specific occupational profiles (Official Gazette of the Hellenic Republic, 2010, pp. 3413–14). The implementation of accredited programs of initial or continuing VET, corresponding with specific job profiles, is the aim of IEK (under the Ministry of Education, with public IEK under the responsibility of the GSLL, and private IEK under the responsibility of EKEPIS for their accreditation) (Official Gazette of the Hellenic Republic, 2010, pp. 3412–13). EOPPEP (EOPP within the law) is also responsible for the implementation of programs of initial VET, formerly under the responsibility of OEEK, which has been recently abolished (Official Gazette of the Hellenic Republic, 2010, p. 3419). Despite the elements of state control, decentralization is promoted through greater involvement of local government and social partners, which is seen in the foundation of both the Convocation and the Council for Lifelong Learning and Employment. However, state control remains as the Convocation of Lifelong Learning and Employment is held biannually by the minister of education. The Convocation assists in the planning and coordination of the implementation of public lifelong learning policy. The participants in the Convocation are the presidents of the employers’ organizations (the Association of Enterprises and Industries, the General Confederation of Professional Craftsmen and Merchants, the National Confederation of Hellenic Commerce), GSEE, the Public Administration of ADEDY, the National Confederation of Persons with Disabilities, the Union of Regions and the Central Union of Municipalities of Greece. The Council for Lifelong Learning and Employment is founded to enhance quality and effectiveness of lifelong learning and enhance the SPRING 2014 49 link with the needs of the labor market. The members of the Council are the minister and the General Secretariat of the Ministry of Education, the General Secretariats of the Ministries of Finance and Labor, representatives of the bodies of the National Lifelong Learning Network, and representatives of the labor market, organizations of employers and trade unions, higher education, the regions and the municipalities, and others (Official Gazette of the Hellenic Republic, 2010, pp. 3405–6). Decentralization policies are also evident in the promotion of lifelong learning in the regions. A region prepares its Regional Lifelong Learning Program on the basis of the National Lifelong Learning Program. The activities of this program are publicly funded by the Ministry of Education (through the GSLL), but also by grants and resources of the regions. In this sense, it could be argued that decentralization efforts degenerated to mere deconcentration of state agencies as they were not followed by funding transfer. In implementing its program, a region is responsible for constituting (by decision of the Regional Council) the Regional Committee for Vocational Training consisting of representatives of the workers’ and employers’ organizations and other social institutions, and formulating recommendations to the Regional Council in matters of VET (Official Gazette of the Hellenic Republic, 2010, p. 3408). Decentralization policies become evident also in general adult education. For its improvement, the Standing Conference on General Adult Education has been founded and is convened and chaired at least once a year by the Minister of Education. Conference participants include social partners such as representatives of university departments, scientific, social and cultural organizations and NGOs, and specialized centers for the social and vocational integration of socially vulnerable groups. The Conference serves the general aims of law 3879/2010, in particular the emergence of general adult education as an equivalent pillar of lifelong learning (Official Gazette of the Hellenic Republic, 2010, p. 3406). Finally, decentralization seen as greater involvement of local government is quite evident in the creation of Local Lifelong Learning Programs in the municipalities. A Local Lifelong Learning Program includes (a) activities linking schools to the community, (b) adult education activities in public health, culture, sports, environment, social integration of immigrants, education and training for youth and the elderly, and Schools for Parents, and (c) promotion of entrepreneurship and innovation through connection with the local community. The municipality implementing such a program establishes and operates Lifelong Learning Centers, administers local structures and programs of the GSLL, and implements programs of the CEE in the framework of programmatic contracts (ibid., pp. 3408–9). In this context, since the beginning of 2011, 50 EUROPEAN EDUCATION the NELE has been transferred to the corresponding municipalities (the capitals of the prefectures) as parts of the service units with responsibilities in lifelong learning (Official Gazette of the Hellenic Republic, 2010, pp. 3417–18). Conclusions Under the influences of the EU, recent lifelong learning policies in Greece (promoted by law 3879/2010) present a major characteristic of the demand-led model of “voluntary partnership,” namely, accreditation policies, associated with the individualization of the responsibility for learning. Such policies are related to the introduction of the NQF and the strong role attributed to EOPPEP, the basic agency for the accreditation of the inputs and the outputs of nonformal education and informal learning, as well as quality assurance. However, there are also regulations corresponding with the characteristics of the “social partnership” model, such as regulations and management through a legal framework, greater involvement of social partners (Convocation and the Council for Lifelong Learning and Employment, Standing Conference on General Adult Education), as well as further decentralization in the implementation of adult education and lifelong learning programs through greater involvement of local government (Regional and Local Lifelong Learning Programs). In addition, there are more incentives for training (through the use of training levies and legal rights to training), while there are also multiple agencies participating in decision-making processes and a more diverse provision of lifelong learning. Given the Greek education tradition, the major characteristics of the “statist” model have also remained. The law specifies a relatively strong state control, with the Ministry of Education playing a central role in planning, monitoring (through the GSLL), as well as accrediting (through EOPPEP) lifelong learning. Also, the state remains (at least in rhetoric) the main source of funding lifelong learning initiatives (with most funds coming from European sources) and places emphasis on equity issues by aiming at the increase of adult education participants, especially those belonging to socially vulnerable groups. The state also intends to make (again, at the level of the rhetoric of the law) general adult education an equal—compared to continuing VET—pillar of lifelong learning. At the same time, centralization can also be seen in the creation of the National Lifelong Learning Network. Indeed, the synthesis of this Network shows that Greece, too, presents the main sectors that, according to Rubenson (2011), are discernable in most countries, although there are variations from country to country, in terms of the structure and provision of adult education. These sectors are adult basic education (including adult literacy and SPRING 2014 51 numeracy), immigrant and citizenship education, adult higher education, workplace education and training (VET); community education; popular adult education; and museums, radio, and TV and libraries. Nevertheless, in the case of Greece, the issue of economic efficiency seems to have a central role. Lifelong learning is associated with the needs of the labour market through policies such as the foundation of EOPPEP and the introduction of the NQF. Due to influences coming from the EU, there is an emphasis on a market-oriented model associated with the notion of employability, despite the fact that there is also a rhetoric developed in the law related to the emancipatory-utopian or social justice model, or the open society model of lifelong learning. However, economic efficiency and equity are conflicting notions in education policy, while the nature of the Greek social formation (especially at times of economic crisis) is to be seriously taken into consideration when considering the possibility of fulfilling either or both of these aims. Note 1. As an executive agent, OEEK’s mission included the following functions: (a) the organization and operation of all public IEK, (b) the supervision of all private IEK, and (c) the achievement of the aims of the National System of Vocational Education and Training, which referred to the foundation of IEK, the placing of VET outside the formal educational system, and the recognition of degrees and qualifications at national and European level (Prokou, 2008). References Cowen, R. (2009). The transfer, translation and transformation of educational processes: And their shape-shifting? Comparative Education, 45(3), 315–327. Efstratoglou, A. (2004). Η συνεχιζόµενη επαγγελµατική κατάρτιση στην Ελλάδα [Continuing vocational education and training in Greece]. www.adulteduc.gr/001/pdfs/analyseis/sek-stin-ellada.pdf?phpMyAdmin=IzNLY94N6L9II uqEdeWoYPqSsG2&phpMyAdmin=db53c3e110bfbcb398c933c5b448fcb6. EOPPEP. (n.d.). Eθνικό Σημείο Επαφής για τη Μεταφορά Πιστωτικών Μονάδων (ECVET) [National contact point for the transfer of credits (ECVET)]. www.eoppep.gr/index.php/el/qualification-certificate/ecvet. European Commission. (1995). White paper on education and training: Teaching and learning. Towards the learning society. http://europa.eu/documents/comm/ white_papers/pdf/com95_590_en.pdf. ———. (2002a). Education and training in Europe: Diverse systems, shared goals for 2010. Belgium: European Communities. ———. (2002b). The Copenhagen Declaration. http://ec.europa.eu/education/pdf/ doc125_en.pdf. ———. (2008). Explaining the European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong 52 EUROPEAN EDUCATION Learning. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. ———. (2011). The European credit system for vocational education and training ECVET: Get to know ECVET better. Questions and answers. http://ec.europa. eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc/ecvet/faq_en.pdf. ———. (n.d.a). The European Credit System for Vocational Education and Training (ECVET). http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/ ecvet_en.htm. ———. (n.d.b). The European Qualifications Framework (EQF). http://ec.europa. eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/eqf_en.htm. European Parliament. (2000). Lisbon European Council 23 and 24 March 2000: Presidency conclusions. www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/lis1_en.htm#b. Green, A. (2002). The many faces of lifelong learning: Recent education policy trends in Europe. Journal of Education Policy, 17(6), 611–626. ———. (2006). Models of lifelong learning and the “knowledge society.” Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 36(3), 307–325. Griffin, C. (2006). Lifelong learning and welfare reform. In P. Jarvis (Ed.), From adult education to the learning society: 21 years from the International Journal of Lifelong Education (pp. 366–394). London/New York: Routledge. Hellenic Qualifications Framework. (n.d.a). The 8 levels of the Hellenic Qualifications Framework. http://en.nqf.gov.gr/The8Levels/tabid/164/Default.aspx. ———. (n.d.b). www.nqf.gov/Default.aspx. ———. (n.d.c). Βήµατα υλοποίησης του Εθνικού Πλαίσιου Προσόντων [Implementation steps of the National Qualifications Framework]. http://www.nqf. gov/Default.aspx. Jarvis, P. (2007). Globalisation, lifelong learning and the learning society: Sociological perspectives. Oxon/New York: Routledge. Kwon, D.B., & Daeyeon, C.H.O. (2011). Overview of lifelong learning policies and systems. In K. Rubenson (Ed.), Adult learning and education (pp. 180– 185). Oxford: Elsevier. Ministry of Economy and Finance—General Secretariat for Investments and Development. (2007). Eθνικό Στρατηγική Πλαίσιο Αναφοράς 2007–2013 [National Strategic Reference Framework 2007–2013]. Athens. Ministry of Education, Lifelong Learning and Religion. (2011). Eθνικό Στρατηγική฀Πλαίσιο Αναφοράς [Merging the National Organization for Accreditation of Qualifications (EOPP)—the National Accreditation Center of Vocational Training Structures and Accompanying Services (EKEPIS)—the National Center for Vocational Guidance (EKEP)], Press Release, Athens, 27 October 2011. www.minedu.gov.gr/grafeio-typou/deltia-typoy/27-10-11sygxoneysi-foreon-eopp-ekepis-kai-ekep.html. National Committee for the Creation of the National Qualifications Framework. (2010). “Εθνικό Πλαίσιο Προσόντων”: Κείµενο εργασίας για τη δηµόσια διαβούλευση [National Qualifications Framework: Working paper for public consultation]. Athens 25 February 2010. www.opengov.gr/ypepth/wp-content/ uploads/downloads/2010/05/NQF_KEMENO-DIABOYLEYSHS.pdf. Official Gazette of the Hellenic Republic. (2010). Νόμος υπ’ αριθ. 3879/2010: Ανάπτυξη της διά βίου μάθησης και λοιπές διατάξεις [Law 3879/2010: Development of lifelong learning and other provisions]. 163 (21 September), 3401–3426. SPRING 2014 53 Official Journal of the European Union. (2008). Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on the establishment of the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning. C 111. Prokou, E. (2008). A comparative approach to lifelong learning policies in Europe: The cases of the UK, Sweden and Greece. European Journal of Education: Research, Development and Policies, 43(1), 123–140. ———. (2009). Εκπαίδευση ενηλίκων και διά βίου μάθηση στην Ευρώπη και την Ελλάδα [Adult education and lifelong learning in Europe and in Greece]. Athens: Dionicos. ———. (2011). The aims of employability and social inclusion/active citizenship in lifelong learning policies in Greece. In I. Psimmenos (Ed.), Contemporary social inequalities (The Greek Review of Social Research—Special Issue), 136 C´, 203–223. Rubenson, K. (2011). The field of adult education: An overview. In K. Rubenson (Ed.), Adult learning and education (pp. 3–13). Oxford: Elsevier. Schuetze, H.G., & Casey, C. (2006). Models and meanings of lifelong learning: Progress and barriers on the road to a learning society. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 36(3), 279–287. Vergidis, D. (2005). Κοινωνικές και οικονομικές διαστάσεις της εκπαίδευσης ενηλίκων [Social and economic dimensions of adult education]. In D. Vergidis & E. Prokou, Σχεδιασμός, διοίκηση και αξιολόγηση προγραμμάτων εκπαίδευσης ενηλίκων: Στοιχεία κοινωνικο-οικονομικής λειτουργίας και θεσμικού πλαισίου [Planning, administration and evaluation of adult education programs: Elements of socioeconomic function and institutional framework] (pp. 13–128). Vol. A´, Patras: Hellenic Open University. 54 EUROPEAN EDUCATION Appendix Abbreviations ADEDY CEE EC ECVET EKDDA EKEP Higher Administration of Civil Servants’ Unions Centers for Environmental Education European Commission European Credit Transfer System for Vocational Education and Training National Center for Public Administration and Local Government National Center for Vocational Guidance National Accreditation Center of Vocational Training Structures and Accompanying Services, renamed National Accreditation Center for EKEPIS Lifelong Learning EOPP National Organization for the Certification of Qualifications National Organization for the Certification of Qualifications and EOPPEP Vocational Guidance EQF European Qualifications Framework IDEKE Institute of Adult and Continuing Education IEK Vocational Training Institutions KEE Centers for Adult Education KEK Vocational Training Centers NELE Prefectural Committees of Adult Education NQF National Qualifications Framework OEEK Organization of Vocational Education and Training SDE Second Chance Schools VET Vocational Education and Training To order reprints, call 1-800-352-2210; outside the United States, call 717-632-3535. Copyright of European Education is the property of M.E. Sharpe Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.