Decree on quality development and performance assessment in general adult education (avu)
Under section 21 (2) of law No. 311 of 30. April 2008 for general adult education and the recognition of real competence in relation to subjects in general adult education, in training and in training for hf-baccalaureate (avu-law) shall be determined:
§ 1. Institutions providing general adult education, must have and use a system of quality assurance and performance evaluation of training and education for, among other things, to strengthen the institution's ability to carry out its responsibility for training.
§ 2. By self-evaluation after this Ordinance shall mean: A process that consists in collecting information and implement procedures enabling continuous, systematic and critical discussions on educational and teaching conditions in conjunction with the institution's organisation and implementation of training.
(2). The quality system must include systematic and regular self-evaluations in some key areas, such as institution selects. Even the evaluations shall be carried out on an ongoing basis and at least every 3. year. Even evaluations shall cover all the key areas selected by the institution, without prejudice. However, section 7, paragraph 3.
§ 3. System for quality improvement and result assessment must ensure a procedure for self evaluations and for continuous quality development, with a view inter alia to ensure that the teaching is in accordance with the objectives set, and the quality of the institution's work continually evolve.
(2). System for quality improvement and result assessment must ensure a procedure for involvement of students and purchasers in the ongoing self-evaluation, quality development and performance assessment. It is not necessary to apply the same evaluation method/system at each key area. Evaluation method/system should be able to include the lighting of certain fixed points, see. sections 4 and 5.
§ 4 . System for quality improvement and result assessment must constantly be able to illuminate
1) how the institution's management is organized to carry out the technical and pedagogical responsibility for training,
2) coherence between the institution's value basis and the selected strategy for self-evaluation,
3) coherence between the selected strategy for self assessment and procedures for implementing the self-assessment,
4) how the institution carry out self-evaluation at the institution of selected key areas,
5) self evaluation impact on key areas and
6) what actions the institution entrepreneur as part of the follow-up.
(2). On the basis of self-evaluations follow-up plans must be drawn up, which describes the change needs and actions, see. § 6 (2).
§ 5. The institution must know the organisation and implementation of training have a procedure that highlights:
1) how teaching and working Forms supports the professional progression in education including the students ' benefit from teaching
2) how teaching and working Forms supports education purpose
3) how teaching and working forms have conjunction with current needs and experiences, including how the students will be involved in the organisation of teaching
4) how there is a professional and educational updating of teachers ' qualifications.
(2). The procedure shall also illuminate:
1) how the institution collects students ' and buy crude assessment of the Organization of the educational process, and how the assessment involved
2) how alerts from censors as well as the result of any external evaluations involved
3) how experiences with the literate in transition and distribution of training involved.
§ 6. On the basis of self assessment, as a minimum, each institution shall draw up 3. year written follow-up plans that can be realized within the current legislation on general adult education and within the financial framework for the programme.
(2). Follow-up plan must be based on the information that is obtained in the context of self evaluation and must describe the change needs and operational quality. It must indicate what actions the institution entrepreneur as part of the follow-up, and within which the schedule actions will be launched.
(3). The last two follow-up plans must be available on the institution and on the institution's website.
§ 7. The institution must always be able to document its system for quality development and performance assessment and the use thereof for the Ministry of education.
(2). The Ministry may obtain information about the system. The Ministry may determine that the information must be submitted in electronic form, including in what format.
(3). The Ministry can provide concrete orders evaluation of other key areas than those of the institution chosen and on follow-up action.
§ 8. The notice shall enter into force on the 1. August 2009.
The Ministry of education, the 16. June 2009 Earl Damgaard/Kirsten Krogstrup