Decolonising recognition of prior learning – The drawbacks of policy mimicking

Abstract

Recognition of prior learning features at the top of the policy agenda in many countries because recognition of prior learning (RPL) has proven effective in some parts of the world; and there is much policy learning taking place. Therefore, many countries want to gain the advantages associated with RPL. It brings benefits to individual end-users and countries as a whole. Whether RPL should be identically implemented everywhere is more questionable. This paper proposes a reflexion based on experience: It looks at what RPL is about, at what it took to implement the validation des acquis de l’expérience (VAE) system in France and its potential transferability. While it is important to learn from one another, transporting a system from one national context to another is unlikely to work because the necessary social and cultural context is never transferred along with the technical apparatus. This is not new, but this paper emphasises the need for appropriate adaption whenever systems are borrowed.

Introduction – an experience-based reflection about recognition of prior learning

It is common – particularly in French-speaking Africa, and in Haiti for example – to be faced with situations where the description given by local actors of their recognition of prior learning outcomes system (RPL) clearly resembles the validation of experiential learning outcomes (Validation des acquis de l’expérience, VAE) as applied in France since its inception with the Social Modernisation Law of 2002 (Légifrance, 2002). In fact, this observation extends to many other fields in the world of education. It seems, for example, that the introduction of some ‘dual’ systems of apprenticeship, of national qualifications frameworks, of particular forms of vocational qualifications, of competence-based approaches to learning and assessment is often correlated with historical or cultural links between particular countries – in these cases, German and northern European on the one hand, and certain Anglo-Saxon countries such as Scotland, England, Australia, New Zealand and Canada on the other. Shared traditions of labour market regulation and education practice, the exchange caused by the work of consultants and participation in the same international organisations all play a part in facilitating the transfer of particular approaches amongst these various ‘families’.

Building on Raffe (2011) we may characterize these exchanges and ‘borrowings’ along a spectrum which runs from a deliberative process of ‘policy learning’, through the wholesale transmission of systems, to the very particular importation and copying of discrete technical methods, which is here described as ‘mimicking’.

At the level of general policy learning, one can cite the work of international organisations such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Bank, European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) and the European Training Foundation (ETF) which typically operate through comparisons between countries and critiques of a country’s education and training systems set against regional or international best practice. The aim here is to invite countries to reflect on features of their own systems set against those of others. An example would be the OECD’s examination of the emergence of national qualifications frameworks across a wide range of its members (Coles and Werquin, 2007).

Transmission of whole systems is visible in empires, trading blocs or colonial projects. Although individual features vary across countries, a common framework – often reflected in the divisions and names of educational stages and qualification titles – is clearly visible. Examples would include the tiering of education levels across much of central Europe due to Hapsburg influences (Phillips, 1992) and later, in the same region, the adoption of communist educational forms through participation in the Warsaw Pact (Grant, 1969). The colonial enterprises of the United Kingdom (UK) and France have each given rise to systems in their former dependencies similar to those in the ‘home’ countries, and – as we shall see – this general commonality, reinforced by a shared language, facilitates subsequent transmission of innovations even after colonial relationships are severed.

Mimicking occurs at a much more technical and discrete level. In such cases, a particular educational or labour market feature – often an innovation in the country of origin – is imported into a new country either as a result of enthusiasm of policymakers in the importing country, or as a result of aid programmes attempting to ‘modernise’ education systems at the technical level. Examples of the former have included the importation into the UK of US innovations such as School/Employer Compacts and Private Industry Councils (Finegold et al., 1993); as an example of the latter case, importation through aid programmes for the European Union (EU) accession programmes in the 1990s included a wide range of recent western European vocational education and training innovations, including competence-based assessment, key competences, decentralised school management and tri-partite decision-making (European Training Foundation, 2001).

This present contribution analyses the reasons that countries often adopt systems from other countries without any significant adaptations – the ‘mimicking’ case set out above. It presents a reflection based on experience about recognition of prior learning outcomes (RPL) because this approach is near the top of the policy agenda, especially in the field of technical vocational education and training (TVET), in many countries. This contribution provides examples of the potential drawbacks of closely replicating policies as implemented in other countries and therefore in different cultures; and transferring components of a qualifications system, such as an RPL system, from one country to another with no adaptations to the new situation. Finally, it puts forward reasons why it can be harmful to transfer systems with no adjustments to the context and culture of the destination country, and why it is the implementation phase that especially suffers if direct policy mimicking is undertaken.

We take the example of the French approach to RPL – the VAE approach – as a case which shows why mimicking a foreign policy or strategy is more complicated than it might seem. The method is based on the triangulation of data – quantitative and qualitative – obtained from the various actors and other key stakeholders interviewed in several countries aiming at implementing RPL, with a specific focus on some French-speaking countries in Africa and Haiti – most of them former colonies – on Columbia and some English-speaking countries also in Africa – such as Kenya or Malawi – because the method is comparative in essence. This fieldwork extends over several years and this contribution is an attempt at summarising findings.

The case of the VAE is interesting because it is a demanding approach, with many prerequisites for success. We shall see that the way RPL is applied in France (i.e., VAE) is not necessarily the most suitable approach in all situations, in all countries, in all contexts, in all cultures or for all RPL applicants. The French approach to RPL can represent a convenient starting point for countries embarking on this path; in that sense, it is relevant for policy learning. However, the conditions necessary for its success must be understood, and these may make it more difficult to implement than at first sight would appear. Less radical RPL solutions do exist, but they are seldom used; and it seems that Raffe’s recommendation for the use of international comparisons for policy learning, as opposed to mechanistic copying can be readily overlooked when topics are high on the political agenda. Policymakers are tempted by the apparent swiftness and easiness of simply importing an approach; soundness of implementation and relevance, together with the need to focus on the context and on local specific needs can become lost in the transfer of a discrete approach from one country to another. In many cases, variants of RPL, adapted to the importing country, would have offered more prospects of success.

Recognition of prior learning is a philosophy, not just a method

Education and training policies or programmes work better when they are based on a comprehensive vision of the future, and when they are in tune with the local culture. RPL is no exception to this. Recognition of prior learning outcomes, or recognition/validation of non-formal and informal learning outcomes (Cedefop, European Commission and ICF, 2019; International Labour Organization, 2021; Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2010b), is the general concept which underlies a variety of mechanisms which have broadly the same end; Validation of Experiential Learning Outcomes (Validation des acquis de l’expérience, VAE) is the French approach to RPL (Werquin, 2012). There are many other approaches, and therefore names, such as Prior Learning Assessment and Recognition (PLAR) in Canada (Aarts et al., 1999, 2003) or Accreditation of Prior Experiential Learning (APEL) in the United Kingdom (Scott, 2010). All these approaches are close in essence, but not identical. There are several alternatives to establishing an RPL system, and the differences may apply on different levels. RPL approaches may differ in terms of their general aims, practical objectives, experiential or learning outcomes which are accepted for assessment, target population, and assessment methods. RPL is the common name, as it were, even if some countries use the term RPL to denote their own particular approach ¹ . The French VAE is a particular application of RPL; it is a singular, rather extreme application because it is designed to lead to the award of a full qualification on the sole basis of a thorough assessment of all individual learning outcomes that are relevant to the qualification in question, however, wherever, and whenever these are acquired. RPL is the most commonly accepted term by scholars, qualifications system staff, policymakers and international organisations (e.g., the International Labour Organization, 2021) and so has currency in international fora. But the national varieties mean that it is important to identify differences that exist in different systems, policies and programmes.

RPL involves accepting the ideas, first, that individuals learn everywhere and all the time; and, second, that there are many benefits to validating and therefore recognising certain ² learning outcomes however they are acquired, together with the corresponding competences. It is a general philosophy. The use of the term RPL does not imply the use of a specific method, or process. This must be left to decision-makers in a particular country, in consultation with relevant stakeholders. RPL is therefore a policy tool, and a flexible one. It offers many options for the overall strategy and its practical implementation. However, too often RPL is understood as a particular method, and so it is not only the general idea that is borrowed from another country but also the full methodology as implemented in the exporting country.

This frequent belief that RPL involves a single, particular, method, rather than a philosophy and a general principle to be adapted to the local context and culture, leads to difficult situations which can mean that the general system is elaborated rapidly as a matter of policy, but that practical implementation is left behind. The attempt to implement an RPL system as it is implemented elsewhere, ³ without taking into account the local context, undoubtedly leads to difficulties. Firstly, because there is a lack of knowledge regarding all the possibilities that RPL offers, the most appropriate solution(s) are not necessarily applied. Secondly, the local stakeholders – social partners, families, learners, workers – are not consulted as it is believed that the best solution has been selected because it works elsewhere. The local promoters of RPL tend not to ask the right questions to the right stakeholders about the actual needs of the end-users. To achieve such customisation would in many cases require capacity-building for the local promoters so as to enable them to go beyond the particular imported approach and adapt it to their local culture and context, after consulting with relevant stakeholders.

Perhaps, copying the French VAE system would be less of an issue if it were not that taking on board the context and culture is – for recognition of prior learning – the key condition of success. Successfully implementing a RPL system indeed requires wider society to become involved. The VAE system in France is the result of a long history (Merle, 2007). It created a new route to qualifications, in addition to the traditional routes of formal education and training, apprenticeship and adult learning. The French approach is demanding in particular because it was built from first principles in such a way as to be able to award full qualifications on the sole basis of a thorough assessment of a person’s existing learning outcomes, and, importantly, for qualifications gained in this way to have full currency in the formal education and training system and in the labour market; in short, to confer the exact same rights and duties to their holders as those who gain qualifications in the traditional ways. International studies show that societal recognition of full qualifications awarded in a RPL system – that is, of qualifications awarded outside the formal education and training system – is a very difficult objective to achieve (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2010b). Societal recognition requires, among other things, the early involvement of all stakeholders in order to create a sense of ownership across the essential actors in society. Importing the VAE system as a whole, without the necessary induction work locally, bypasses the creation of this sense of ownership, and hampers success. For example, there is strong evidence that there is never any broad communication strategy for reaching out to key stakeholders, and employers and potential applicants in particular.

Potential explanations for policy mimicking – and associated drawbacks

There are several linked reasons which may explain the tendency to mimic the French VAE system in those French-speaking countries which have attempted to establish an RPL system. Each has to do with the ease of implementation as perceived by policymakers and promoters in the countries in question.

For historical reasons, these French-speaking countries usually want a legal framework to underpin any policy. Contrary to this belief, RPL does not necessarily need a law, and a social consensus would suffice to implement it. However, because it is in the tradition of these countries to go through the parliamentary route and to erect a legal framework, it is relatively easy to consult existing documents – law, bylaws, and regulations – from abroad, especially when they are written in a language that is common to the source and the destination countries. The documents from the country of origin are not necessary replicated identically, but a reasonable assumption is that once the promoters of RPL in a given country find out about the French VAE system, it then becomes difficult for them to move away from this first encounter with VAE.

Indeed, when a country decides to establish a system for recognising prior learning outcomes, resources and implementation deadlines rapidly become an issue, and it is considerably faster to copy existing systems than to develop a custom-made version. Transferring the French VAE identically to another country is convenient because it minimises the preparatory conceptual work. The documents elaborated may look different, but in essence it is the VAE system that is replicated in the destination country. The issue here is that the replication process fails to involve local stakeholders and so stands the danger overlooking their needs, which could have been addressed by developing a home-grown RPL system. As explained above, RPL requires wider society to re-examine its views and beliefs, and so society cannot be bypassed. VAE eventually leads to giving societal value and currency in the labour market to all learning outcomes however acquired, because it leads to the awarding of a full qualification. This is a considerable change in systems and societies that have historically relied on the formal education and training system to prepare individuals for life and for the labour market. As was noted above, societal recognition is undoubtedly the most difficult objective to achieve in the field of RPL. This is due to the attachment of stakeholders – especially the key ones such as families and employers – to qualifications awarded within the formal education and training system such as schools, universities, technical vocational education and training centres. The mere idea that a qualification could be awarded outside the formal system is difficult to accept in many contexts and cultures (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2010a; Werquin, 2013). Therefore, the establishment of an RPL system requires time, much explanation and a cultural shift, all of which are bypassed if a foreign system is simply imported.

Another attraction in simply borrowing from the French VAE system is that, in varying forms, it has enjoyed several decades of existence; it is therefore considered tried and tested. This can give a false sense of comfort and wrongly reassure local promoters that VAE will work in their country too. Moreover, this long history in France has led to the progressive development of tools connected with VAE, for example, for information and guidance, for identifying relevant learning outcomes and for assessing them. It therefore might seem relatively easy to build a full new system just by mimicking those tools that exist elsewhere. However, here again, this may prove unsatisfactory, though for different reasons. The French approach for instance relies heavily on setting out and reading portfolios of competences and so assumes a reasonable level of literacy amongst participants. However, many applicants in importing countries have literacy issues or are literate in a language that is not the official language of their country. If the importing country lacks innovation capacities but does not want to rely on – or cannot, for technical reasons – modern portfolio-building approaches such as using pictures, videos, sounds or models, the situation can be very difficult. The French approach also requires that established qualifications standards exist and are used on a daily basis in the formal education and training system, which is not systematically the case in Africa; moreover, these standards need to be written in terms of learning outcomes, which is unusual in destination countries.

This lack of underlying infrastructure is often the source of the problems given that RPL is a relatively new field; indeed there is room for continuous improvement in the case of VAE in France which has weaknesses even after 20 years of existence in its current form (Werquin, 2021). The irony is that France keeps reforming and improving its VAE system, whereas the countries that are using it as a template remain confined to the model that was in use in France when they started to look at it for inspiration. Hence, some countries such as Morocco (2016) or Haïti (2015) are still trying to implement Validation of Occupational Learning Outcomes (VAEP), whereas France moved from Validation of Occupational Learning Outcomes to Validation of Experiential Learning Outcomes as long ago as 2002.

So, there are a number of reasons to explain policy mimicking in the field of RPL and the overuse of the very specific French approach of VAE. They range from simplicity of concept to swiftness of implementation, and to economy in terms of resources. Copying the French approach also reassures policymakers who frequently ask for solutions that have already been tried elsewhere and who are naturally attracted to ready-to-use solutions. However, the point made in this contribution is precisely that the fact that a system works elsewhere is a poor predictor that the same system will also work in a different context and culture. It remains that the example of RPL, and its French version of VAE, clearly shows that no transfer of specific components of a qualification system is possible without a thorough consultation with, and acceptance by, wider society in the country of destination. In theory, international organisations should help in this endeavour, but their administrators are often in charge of many portfolios, sometimes running wider than the field of education and training. RPL and VAE are technical matters, and they require specific competences and experience of what works and does not work in different contexts. Moreover the practice of asking local stakeholders about their needs too often does not seem to have much currency among international organisations, even though surely it should be a rather sensible and straightforward approach. International organisations very often have a specific agenda which is not necessarily guaranteed to match the needs and expectations of countries they are aiming to help. ⁴ International organisations can often be very prescriptive, paying too little attention to the views of countries’ stakeholders; this can be detrimental to the smooth implementation of any system. And independent consultants often, and understandably, tend to apply what they know best, which is obviously heavily influenced by their country of origin.

Finally, the way international cooperation is organised can impair the effective application of new approaches as a result of different project teams working in isolation from one another. Any RPL approach – including VAE – requires that curriculum and qualifications standards are based on learning outcomes and competences; it is the particular combination of competences that matters to employers – the capacity to mobilise several different abilities to achieve a result; so it is a cluster that represents an occupation that is the core target of the development of competences, rather than a disparate series of modules or units. Several countries are still trying to implement RPL while still using a very specific competence-based approach (APC, Approche par les compétences), developed through earlier aid projects, that leads to a high level of fragmentation of competences. This tendency of projects to work independently of each other is detrimental to overall policy learning because there is little scope for creative cross-fertilisation and integration.

Why is the French VAE approach demanding – an idiosyncratic model

To show how extreme the French VAE approach is in terms of achieving RPL goals, and therefore to draw attention to the risks of applying it identically outside France, this section describes the characteristics of the French approach. It shows how specific the approach and the context are. The French system may be characterised as follows:

- The most recent version of the VAE was built on a social consensus, embodied in the National Interprofessional Agreement that preceded the Social Modernisation Law of 2002, and – more than this – on two hundred years of history of building a vision based on the belief that adult learning means preparing adults for the labour market (for example, the principle of the multiplicity of routes to the same qualification has been in French law since 1971), and over 70 years of partial practice of the validation of experiential learning outcomes (since 1934 for engineers, and then successively VAPP in 1985 and VES for tertiary education, and Validation of Occupational Learning Outcomes,VAP, in 1992).

- The VAE appeared in a context where other related, but different ⁵ , systems – such as the “Competence Audit” (Bilan de competences) and the “Free Application ⁶ ” (Candidature libre) – were already in existence. This made it easier to design a system that is transparent to users because it complemented other systems which were already in place. So, VAE naturally appears as a component among a wide range of opportunities enabling end-users to select the most appropriate strategy.

- The VAE approach accepts all forms of learning outcomes – whether personal or occupational – whatever the context in which they have been acquired, even well outside the occupational sphere.

- France has a law (2002, revised in 2016 and 2018) which provides a general vision. The Law of 2002 is direct and simple, providing for VAE to be available to every citizen, not just workers. This law is placed within a legislative framework that has clearly stated for decades (since 1971) that a qualification is the result of a learning process, rather than a learning programme; this underpinning made the inception of VAE relatively easy. The law does not provide any details – for example, number of hours of formal learning, or compulsory on- or off-the-job learning – regarding the conditions for awarding a qualification; such requirements are often limiting factors in those countries where the relevant law on qualifications goes into details, sometimes even in terms of the number of formal learning hours required in individual subjects.

- The Law requires that VAE be systematically included as an option for the awarding of a qualification for all qualifications registered in the National Qualifications Catalogue (RNCP, Répertoire national des certifications professionnelles – about 7000 qualifications at the time of writing). This is a considerable help for promoting VAE among all stakeholders in the worlds of education and of work.

- The qualifications system does not distinguish a qualification awarded after a VAE process from a qualification achieved through the formal education and training system; and the rights and duties of the owners of a qualification are the same in Law. As a result, there is wide acceptance of RPL routes in society. Some employers even state that they would rather hire individuals who gained qualifications through an RPL process as they have practical experience as well as the qualification, which is indeed a win–win for employers.

- There is perfect fungibility between the budget for lifelong learning and the budget for VAE. Therefore, all costs for VAE may be supported through lifelong learning funds, including in the context of the recently revised individual learning accounts (Compte personnel de formation, CPF).

- There is a built-in guidance system to allow applicants to receive sound guidance about the VAE process, what it means, what it takes and what it leads to. There is an entitlement to up to 20 hours of guidance which can be resourced from the lifelong learning budget.

- There are also plenty of opportunities for interested people to obtain free information, advice and guidance before engaging in VAE, for example, through the newly installed Occupational Career Guidance system (Conseil en évolution professionnelle, CEP), which employers are required to inform employees about. Again, this is free for individuals.

- The VAE process is designed so that the assessment of prior learning outcomes is carried out against qualifications standards that have been in existence for decades, and which originated within the formal education and training system. Thus, a large part of the preparatory work during the VAE process consists in matching elements of experience with the content of these qualifications standards, which is extremely demanding in terms of requiring properly trained VAE professionals; and which obviously implies that qualifications standards actually exist so that VAE assessors may assess applicants in a fair, reliable and authentic manner. The quality of the assessment, and the acceptance of the qualifications standards are both key to building trust, and to establishing societal recognition of the qualifications awarded in the VAE system.

- Engaging in a VAE process implies a reasonable literacy level since the assessment is based on the preparation of two portfolios of competences (titled Booklets one and 2), the first to establish eligibility and the second to act as the basis for the assessment.

- The VAE assessment process requires that applicants are able to document their learning outcomes and therefore to substantiate the competences they claim they have – for example, through employment contract(s), certificate(s) of attendance in training sessions; this pre-supposes a culture of paper certification, and trust in the documents submitted in support of an application.

- Finally, and most importantly, the French VAE system allows for the awarding of a full qualification on the sole basis of the assessment of claimed learning outcomes. The VAE is built to allow the direct awarding of any qualifications registered in the National Qualifications Catalogue (RNCP) of the National Qualifications Framework. This is the essence of the approach and so the qualifications awarded benefit from the societal recognition that is accorded to these established qualifications.

In summary, the French VAE is demanding, in particular in terms of resources – for example,, for the guidance of potential applicants before they enrol, of the applicants themselves once they engage with the VAE process, and for the assessment process itself. It is not clear that such an elaborate and resource-intensive approach is necessarily needed in the countries that have used the French VAE as a template for their RPL system. It is demanding also because it requires that qualifications standards already exist, that they are written in terms of learning outcomes, and that properly trained professionals are available for guidance and assessment. For applicants, it is demanding because achieving a full qualification sometimes places the bar too high, especially for those only interested in accessing a local job, or a better job in the same occupation, for which a full national qualification may not actually be needed.

In addition, and perhaps most importantly, not all companies in the world of work are necessarily prepared to accept that the qualifications awarded after a VAE process are strictly the same as those issued in the formal education and training system. In short, the validation part is technical and comparatively easy to organise. It is a thorough assessment, and it involves only VAE assessors. By contrast, societal recognition has to be earned. It requires much work and, in particular, an effective communication strategy. In some countries the adaptation of attitudes involved is sometimes too great, and the necessary cultural shift too challenging.

What are the alternatives and why can they be more relevant?

Contrary to the common belief discussed earlier, RPL may in fact take many forms; the French VAE is only one particular application. Any RPL system should be elaborated first and foremost to serve the needs of the country where it is implemented, which means identifying and analysing these needs, consulting with all relevant stakeholders, and taking into account the local culture; for example, the capacity of the society to recognise qualifications not awarded within the formal education and training system.

This section describes the possible alternatives to the VAE approach that are nevertheless still perfectly valid means to achieve RPL. It explains how they are relevant in certain contexts, and often more desirable because they are more adapted to local practices and customs. In fact, none of the choices that have been made in France are necessary conditions for the establishment of an RPL system. They all are choices that seemed relevant to French stakeholders at the time of its creation, hence its relative success.

RPL is a flexible policy tool and there is a multitude of approaches. It is not possible to report all of them here. These flexibilities apply to the responsible authorities, to the nature of the learning outcomes which are accepted for assessment, to the assessment methods used, and to the nature of the awards made to successful applicants. This section suggests several options for each of these components of an RPL system.

The main authority in charge of RPL may be for example:

- The Ministry of Education; – The Ministry of Labour; – Any other sectoral ministry; or

- An inter-ministerial delegation.

There are several reasons to believe that the Ministry of Labour is the most appropriate choice, not least because the realisation that a lot of learning occurs at the workplace is well known to labour stakeholders. In fact, teachers and academics often have greater trouble understanding what RPL is about. In some countries where actual competences are plentiful but they are not made visible through a longstanding qualifications system, RPL is seen as an important way of increasing flexibility and mobility in the labour market. When there is an important need for coordination, implementing RPL may need a high level political backing, and so is ideally driven as an initiative by the Prime Minister’s office.

The learning outcomes that may be accepted for assessment mainly are:

- Learning outcomes acquired during occupational experience at the workplace; – Learning outcomes from the personal sphere; or

- Learning outcomes from activities in the not-for profit sectors.

Because the context of learning is so wide for adults – from the very formal to non-formal and wholly informal – restricting the acceptable learning outcomes to those coming from a specific sphere would exclude a fair proportion of potential RPL applicants with relevant competences.

There are many assessment methods, for example:

- Observation at the workplace (by definition only possible for those who have a job); – Simulation of a workplace (in a training centre for example); – Practical tests regarding the practice of a trade; – Written examinations (typically for RPL in the tertiary education system); – Interviews; – Portfolios of competences (including modern approaches with photographs, videos, or objects); or

- A mix of some, or all, of these approaches.

The assessment is at the core of RPL, and it should be organised in such a way that creates trust, and this is context dependent. The portfolio of competences approach, typically, is effective and efficient – as in the VAE approach – but many stakeholders in other countries find it difficult to accept that applicants are not assessed at the workplace, as they believe this is the best test of how well they are likely to work. By the same token, some countries cannot accept any assessment shorter than a week, whereas it could be half a day in others.

Successful applicants may be awarded for example:

- An exemption from the academic prerequisites required to access tertiary education; – An exemption from part of the curriculum in a formal education and training programme; – Credits toward a qualification; – A partial qualification; – A full qualification; or

- A certificate of labour market competences, that is, aiming only at local and specific recognition (e.g., a territory, an industry sector, or even an enterprise).

This last point needs to be developed a little. Because the French VAE can go as far as a full qualification, successful applicants arguably benefit twice from engaging in the VAE system. This ‘double currency’ comes from the fact that, with their newly acquired qualification, they can enter (or return to) the labour market; additionally (or instead) their new qualification can entitle them to resume studies in the formal education and training system. This double currency feature is at the core of the French VAE approach, and there are many instances of successful VAE applicants engaging in formal education and training later in life. They were never given any chance to continue formal study in their earlier academic careers and the VAE process was, for them, a revelation of their abilities. They have realised that they were able to succeed, but never had a chance to do so. VAE therefore acts as a stepping-stone for them.

However, the fieldwork across different continents clearly shows that what matters to potential applicants is often to [quickly] find a decent job, and that returning to studies is only a relatively minor part of their motivation (Dyson and Keating, 2005). As we have seen, the French VAE is at the radical end of the spectrum in that it can award a full qualification, thus maximising the options for an individual. Few non-French-speaking countries have chosen to go as far as issuing a full qualification on the basis of an RPL assessment. While this may be an option, the system should probably not be built for this purpose. There is a difference between allowing it, under certain conditions, and making it the central point on which the whole system is based. Indeed, there is a danger in being too ambitious because obtaining a full qualification for applicants who have mainly acquired their competences in contexts other than formal is certainly a challenging undertaking.

This is because often applicants are not used to assessment, and do not have the knowledge and experience to navigate the education and training systems. But failing applicants who have taken the challenging step of submitting to an assessment could be harmful. Failure might well mean that the likelihood that they will become lifelong learners is much reduced, and they may become discouraged in any further development of their competences. A decision to implement the full French VAE system should not be undertaken lightly, and the promoters of RPL in a country should evaluate the actual needs of the end-users: If applicants for instance just need a job or a better job, then a certificate of labour market competences – in the form of a badge, card, or micro-credential – may be quite adequate.

Simply adopting, rather than adapting, the French VAE system is clearly a comfortable way to go about implementing RPL for decision-makers in French-speaking countries. It appears to make it possible to benefit from the long French experience gained in this field, and to minimise the preparatory work. However, adopting VAE, as a ready-to-use system, carries considerable risk.

Remarks and perspectives

Recognition of prior learning outcomes has important advantages for African countries where many individuals have not been able to go to school, or have not been able to go to school long enough to achieve a qualification that has currency in their labour market. This makes it difficult for them to access to jobs, and decent jobs in particular. Since a lot of learning takes place in non-formal and informal contexts, RPL is clearly a potential solution to achieve more transparency about competences, enabling employers and individuals better to match the required competences with those that are available. This is why it is being adopted in many countries. Africa has a large pool of workers with competences that have not yet been validated by qualifications. RPL represents a real opportunity, provided that the method used to implement it is appropriately adapted ⁷ . There is no such a thing as a one-size-fits-all in the field of RPL any more than in the field of education and training in general.

For instance, the French approach to RPL (VAE) is not only a particular application of the general principle of RPL, but it is a particularly demanding application, especially in terms of resources and personal investment on the part of the applicants. Nevertheless, there is no right or wrong approach to RPL, as long as the needs of end-users are met and take into account the context and culture of the country of implementation. There is a strong consensus on the need for quality assured assessment for building trust. Everything else can be regarded as flexible and can be developed in a local way.

A good quality, robust, means of assessment reassures end-users – especially employers – and helps to develop self-esteem and confidence among applicants. Assessment is at the heart of any RPL process. From this point of view, the French approach can be instructive as it explicitly demonstrates that different assessment methods can lead to the award of the same qualification. The offer of several routes to the same qualification – initial formal education and training, apprenticeship, adult learning and VAE – is undoubtedly the main innovation of the French approach. The assessment procedures vary from one route to another, but the qualification awarded is exactly the same. This is due to the fact that the same qualifications standards are used in all assessment procedures, and that they are widely agreed as the criteria for assessing applicants at a given level. This makes the French VAE system demanding, and a fair proportion of applicants do not succeed. The question remains as to whether the French VAE system is the most suitable for direct transfer to French-speaking countries in Africa. For example, Morocco is still struggling to implement its Validation of Occupational Learning Outcomes system (Validation des acquis de l’expérience professionnelle, VAEP), which has been confined to a pilot stage since 2008. In the meantime, local experiments aiming to identify a reserve of individuals to recruit from when economic activity is high has proven extremely relevant to local enterprises (Recotillet and Werquin, 2020). These local experiments have shown that potential workers are not interested in a national qualification in itself, but rather see RPL as a route to a decent job. It has also shown that employers have little time to select recruits when they need to upscale their activities; and that they are therefore interested in local agencies – for example, the Public Employment Service – helping to do it for them by assessing potential workers and awarding ‘simple’ certificates of labour market competences.

In the same vein, Colombia has also decided to award certificates for RPL outside the formal education and training system because evidence suggests that society is not ready to accept the significant shift of regarding experiential and formal learning as equivalent to each other. It will soon pilot its RAP system (Reconocimiento de aprendizajes previos) in the equestrian industry, which is a convincing way of reaping the immediate advantages of RPL while waiting for opportunities to upscale in more industry sectors and qualifications. Kenya is also making significant progress with an RPL system consistent with its national qualifications framework. Its recent pilot has shown how important it is to introduce learning outcomes in the occupational standards when these standards are used to provide the criteria for assessing applicants who are aiming for a specific trade. Mauritania is also building an RPL system. It is to some extent inspired by the French VAE approach, but significant amendments have been made to make it work in the Mauritanian context, in particular by involving key stakeholders, and professional federations and guilds. This is also the case in Mauritius and Seychelles. Finally, Malawi has one of the most fascinating approaches as it has become apparent that a form of RPL has been in existence for 60 years, in the form of their Trade Testing system. The newly established RPL system will build firmly on this historical system, which offers a good prospect of leading to societal acceptance.

All these countries illustrate success stories. The key message is that all RPL systems can be effective – even those based on a foreign system – as long as there is the necessary adaptation to the local culture and context, and the views of the stakeholders about their particular needs are carefully taken into account. If this kind of adaptation is not done, then the risk is that the RPL system will exist on paper, but that it will never be implemented in any large scale. It is the implementation phase that suffers most from imported, and poorly adapted, systems. It is relatively easy to design a system on paper. It is even fairly easy to pilot it successfully because a lot of resources tend to be invested in pilots. The real challenge – the moment of truth – comes with actual implementation and scaling-up; it is only at this point that it becomes apparent that an ill-designed system will not pass the evaluation by the broad public.

A way forward, for recognition of prior learning systems to flourish – at least in the countries under review in this contribution – is to decolonise recognition of prior learning in order to install systems that do not necessarily need expert outsiders and their resources to shape their RPL systems.