Policies of adult education in Portugal andFrance: the European Agenda of validationof non-formal and informal learning

C. CAVACOa, P. LAFONTb and M. PARIATb

aInstitute of Education, University of Lisbon, Portugal;bInstitute of Education and Social Sciences, University ofParis-Est Creteil, France

This article analyses the influence of the European Union’s educational policies on theimplementation of devices for the recognition and the validation of informal and non-formal learning within public policies on education and training for adults in EuropeanUnion Member States. Portugal and France are taken as examples. The EuropeanUnion’s statements have influenced the development of devices for recognizing adultcompetences, regardless of the social, cultural and economic specificities of each country.However, sociocultural and sociopolitical characteristics influence the conditions underwhich recognition devices and the methods of their experimentation and generalizationemerge, and are the vector of conflicts of interests between macro- and micro-sociologicallevels. There is at the same time a ‘culture of convergence’ impelled by the EuropeanCommission, and a process of adaptation in matters of cultural and territorialised prac-tices, which aim to avoid marginalization. Data are drawn from official documents andinterviews with people in charge of training institutions.

Keywords: adult education; educational policies; European Union; validation of non-for-mal and informal learning

Carmen Cavaco has been a teacher/researcher at the Institute of Education, University of Lisbon,since 1999. She has a PhD in Sciences of Education/Adult Education and conducts research in areasof public policy adult education, experiential learning, validation of prior learning, unschooledadults and low-schooled adults and biographical approach. She has published various books and arti-cles in journals. She is also a member of Network Recognition of Prior Learning at ADMEE-Europeand of REDFORD International Network (International Development of Education and TrainingNetwork).Correspondence: Institute of Education, University of Lisbon, Portugal. Email: carmen@ie.ul.ptPascal Lafont is a teacher/researcher at the Faculty of Educational and Sciences, Paris-Est Creteil Uni-versity. At the REV CIRCEFT EA 4384, his research work deals, on the one hand, with the effects oftraining and recognition and validation of prior learning, and on the other, with the representationsand relationships of economic social and political actors with work, employment and training poli-cies, on both local and international levels. He is in charge of the development of international rela-tions at the same university. He is responsible for an international degree course for the ‘Expertise,Engineering and Organizational Management’ Masters Degree. He is also a member of REDFORDInternational Network (International Development of Education and Training Network).Marcel Pariat is a teacher/research at the Faculty of Educational and Social Sciences, Paris-Est CreteilUniversity. At the LIRTES EA 7313, his research work deals, on the one hand, with the effects oftraining and recognition and validation of prior learning, and on the other, with the representationsand relationships of economic social and political actors with work, employment and training poli-cies, on both local and international levels. He assumes various responsibilities, including Head ofthe Doctoral Studies Department at Paris-Est University, Head of ‘international development, andPresident of the REDFORD International Network (International Development of Education andTraining Network).

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

INT. J. OF LIFELONG EDUCATION, 2014

Vol. 33, No. 3, 343–361, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2014.896086

Introduction

The objective of this paper is to analyse the influence of the European Union’seducational policies on the implementation of validation1 of non-formal andinformal learning2 within the framework of the public policies, such as adulteducation and training in the member states. It is based on the examples of Por-tugal and France.3 We consider that the European Union rhetoric on lifelonglearning policy has influenced the development of validation of non-formal andinformal learning (Colardyn & Bjornavold, 2004). These political orientationshave generated the European Union agenda (European Union Council, 2011),which has greatly influenced public policies (Tessaring & Wannan, 2004) in thevarious Member States, particularly concerning the Recognition and Validationof Acquired Experience (RVAE). This is the hypothesis that structures the analy-sis presented in this article.

In common with other authors (Antunes, 2005; Dale, 2000, 2004; Novoa,1998), it appears to us that the European Union’s agenda fits into a commonframework, whose finality is the harmonization of public policies on educationand training across the Member States. This tendency has been visible throughthe emergence of RVAE policies and practices in various Member States, such asFrance and Portugal, since 2000. These public policies are framed by a commonassertion and by ‘concerted actions’ (Novoa, 1998, p. 98). How can the impactof RVAE policies be surveyed? RVAE is legitimized by its contribution to compet-itiveness, employability and mobility (Commission of the European Communi-ties, 2000; European Commission, 1995). Thus, thanks to the European agenda,the RVAE public policies in France and Portugal are very much oriented towardseconomic development, and more specifically, towards the labour market. Inthe past, national public policies on adult education had the principal aims ofserving the economic development and the resolution of social problems(Dubar, 2000). However, this appears to be reducing in a world confronted witha great change where interdependence results in invention of new modes ofproducing and managing competences (Morin, 2011).

Our hypothesis that beyond European incentives in the RVAE, socioculturaland sociopolitical characteristics would influence the conditions of emergenceof systems (like methods of experimentation and their generalization), andwould be the vector for conflicts of interests between the macro- and micro-sociological levels (Lebouteillec, 2002). National public policies are stronglyinfluenced by the global agenda (Dale, 2004); however, practices remain unde-termined (Van Zanten, 2006), due to re-interpretations, adaptations and trans-formations produced by local actors. Thus, we hope to interrogate the modes ofproduction, reproduction, actualization or realization of social action by agents’practices (Giddens, 1987). There is at the same time a ‘culture of convergence’impelled by the European Commission’s incentives toward the harmonization ofpractices and systems of lifelong learning, and an approach of adaptation. Thelatter is concerned with cultural and territorialized practices, whose goals wouldbe not to undergo any form of marginalization (Bouchet, 2005). This impliesparadoxes in terms of the logics of the intended political ends and potentialitiesof these practices (Canario, 2006).

The harmonization of public policies for education and training—one of themajor objectives of the European Union—is a result of various regulation

344 C. CAVACO ET AL.

mechanisms (Barroso, 2006; Dale, 2004; Maroy, 2006, 2008; Van Zanten, 2006,2011). First, there is the political assertion of the lifelong learning perspective,instrumentalizing education and training as serving economic development andthe resolution of social problems (Canario, 2006; Cavaco, 2009). Secondly, thefinancing mechanisms of the European Social Fund, turned towards priorityfields, make it possible to harmonize the political measures set-up by each Mem-ber State. Thirdly, the Open Method of Coordination, the defining of quantita-tive objectives, the European frameworks, benchmarks and terminology, theassessment studies and the broadcasting of appropriate practices are regulationmechanisms (Barroso, 2006; Maroy, 2006, 2008; Van Zanten, 2006, 2011), serv-ing the standardization of public policies between the Member States. In Franceand Portugal, all these regulation mechanisms are obvious in RVAE. To give afew examples, it is possible to refer to common European principles on the vali-dation of non-formal and informal learning, to the European Inventory on thevalidation of non-formal and informal learning, to the European QualificationsFramework for lifelong learning and to the European Guidelines for validationof non-formal and informal learning. Harmonization is possible, on the onehand, at the level of statements and common procedures, and on the otherhand, at the level of figures (Felouzis & Hanhart, 2011), with financing, definingof quantitative objectives, assessments, listing and comparison of data, amongcomparative studies and reports. This diversity and complementarity of the toolsmake it possible to be really efficient in the harmonization of policies and, atthe same time, concerning aims, and organization and modes of functioning.

This article, which is centred on RVAE policies and practices in France andPortugal, is articulated around four axes. The first clarifies certain methodologi-cal elements of research. The second is an analysis centred on the fields of con-vergence of RVAE public policies in both countries. The third is a reflection oncertain points of divergence and the specificities of these policies in the twocountries. The fourth highlights some elements of complexity, tensions anddilemmas concerning these public policies at the practical level, and more spe-cifically, on the part of local actors.

Methodological elements

The present analysis results from qualitative research, undertaken in Portugaland in France, on RVAE public policies, centred on the relationship betweenmacro and micro levels. The distinction between micro-analysis and macro-analy-sis is not the most pertinent for social sciences, in the senses that there are vari-ous ways to articulate these levels, and that it is more important to consider therelationship between them and the disjunctions inherent in them. Thus, itseems that ‘the dilution of the distinctions between macro and micro, large orsmall, State and community, universal and singular, does not allow these catego-ries to be considered in a logic of opposition’ (Correia & Caramelo, 2003,p. 168), but in a logic of contradictory complementarity.

According to Canario (2003, p. 2) ‘scientific knowledge comes from thecapacity to set problems and to build temporary answers, from a systematic andcontrolled list of empirical information’, which is the case in this analysis. Inorder to analyse the relationship between macro and micro levels concerning

345POLICIES OF ADULT EDUCATION

RVAE policies in Portugal and in France, we triangulated the empirical data(Yin, 2003) from various tools. Resorting to various tools of research aimed atgathering ‘a maximum of relevant information’ (Deslauriers & Kerisit, 1997,p. 99) on the subject under study. The empirical data were collected throughdocumentation and semi-structured interviews. We gathered and exploited thedocuments structuring the European Union’s political orientations on educationand training and legal documents concerning RVAE policies in Portugal and inFrance. In addressing the aims of this article, the analysis of these documentsplayed a structuring role. In Portugal, we organized semi-structured interviewswith teams from three centres in charge of the implementation of the RVAEprocess—in order to understand better how the paradoxes and dilemmas appearin practical application. In this research, the empirical data gathered were cru-cial to understanding ‘the infinite game of inter-retroactions, the solidaritybetween the phenomena, the haze, the uncertainty, the contradiction’ (Morin,2005, p. 22); they are present in the relationship between the RVAE policiesdefined at supranational and national levels and the local actors’ practices.

The Educational Agenda of the European Union and informal and non-formal learning—the convergence

To clarify the political orientations of the European Union and the strategiesadopted to diffuse them, in particular, with regard to the process of recognitionand validation of non-formal and informal learning, we analysed the content ofthe terminology of the White Paper on Education and Training, Teaching andLearning, Towards the Learning Society (European Commission, 1995), of the Memo-randum on Lifelong Learning (Commission of the European Communities, 2000)and of the Council Recommendation on the validation of non-formal and infor-mal learning (European Union Council, 2012). Through the analysis of thesethree documents, we highlight one of the hypotheses of this article—the Euro-pean Union’s political orientations aim at harmonizing policies of educationand training between the Member States, a tendency also visible in the field ofthe validation of acquired experience. As Novoa (1998) says, there are ‘a fewhundred documents outlining a European policy of education’, even if thosedocuments acknowledge, on a discursive level, that ‘Education is the MemberStates’ exclusive competence’ (p. 98). These documents create a paradox. Onthe one hand, they acknowledge the autonomy of each Member State in thefield of education, and, on the other hand, they mention the importance of har-monization and common policies. Those documents appear as strategic to ‘buildcategories of thought, organise languages, show solutions that will become domi-nant patterns’ (Novoa, 1998, p. 98), and to set a path towards the standardiza-tion of public policies for education and training in the Member States. As itcurrently appears, the national policies on education are generally elaborated toleave the established ‘Global Agenda’ (Dale, 2000), which makes it possible tonote the origin of the convergences of the orientations between the variouscountries.

The White Paper on Education and Training, Teaching and Learning, Towardsthe Learning Society (European Commission, 1995) attests to a political discourseon the idea of lifelong learning, as a strategy for progress in the future. Thisdocument, carrying a very pragmatic register, identifies the big social challenges

346 C. CAVACO ET AL.

and the measures to be taken by each Member State. Education and traininghave become essential tools to promote economic development and overcomeunemployment and social exclusion. This idea is reinforced throughout the doc-ument, in phrases such as in ‘education and training have now emerged as thelatest means for tackling the employment problem’ (European Commission,1995, p. 1). The document says ‘moving towards the learning society is a twofoldchallenge […] the first challenge is economic [and the second is] social, con-fronted with an urgent need to avoid social gaps’ (European Commission, 1995,pp. 27–28). The investment in education and training is required for the emer-gence of a new model of economic growth in Europe, to make its economy oneof the most competitive internationally, in comparison with the United Statesand Japan in particular. This finality is obvious in the statement ‘the EU, as theworld’s leading exporter […] has to continually strengthen its economic com-petitiveness’ (European Commission, 1995, p. 27). The aim is thus indeed toinvest in ‘human capital’ for a more competitive Europe.

Education and training are considered as centred on the development of keycompetences to for employment and the workplace, an idea visible in thestatement ‘the White Paper acknowledges that investment in skills is a prime fac-tor in competitiveness and employability’ (European Commission, 1995, p. 50).The analysis reveals a logic that encourages individuals to assume more responsi-bility in ways that guarantee their employability and facilitate their managementof their work-related lives. This is noticeable in the statement ‘encourage indi-viduals to assemble their qualifications themselves’ (European Commission,1995, p. 59). The lifelong learning perspective initiated in the White Paper onEducation and Training (European Commission, 1995) announced the valida-tion of non-formal4 and informal learning5 as strategic tools making it possibleto solve the problem of the young people who leave the educational system with-out a school certificate or professional qualification. The question of recognitionand validation also gives a new visibility to how much individuals learn outsideformal education and training: in ‘this way, for instance, someone with no paperqualifications can approach a prospective employer, show that they have beenaccredited’ (European Commission, 1995, p. 20). The devices moreover aredirected towards the promotion of mobility between the various countries of theEuropean Union, the ambition being to recognize the competences acquired bynon-formal and informal education, in close relation with employers and thepeople in charge of education and training institutions.

The European Council held in Lisbon in 2000 appears as an event whichstimulated the harmonization of public policies on education and training.This is observable in the statement ‘this is a decisive moment for the direc-tion of policy and action in the European Union’ (Commission of the Euro-pean Communities, 2000, p. 3). To ensure concrete and efficient measures,the European Union issued its Memorandum on Lifelong Learning (2000),at a period when, in spite of the consensus, the Member States ‘have beenslow to take concerted action’ (Commission of the European Communities,2000, p. 4). At that time, the idea of Europe entering an Age of Knowledge,and its consequences for cultural, economic and social life were emphasised.In the Memorandum on Lifelong Learning, the link between of educationand training and economic growth, competitiveness, employment and socialinclusion was stressed, as in the statement it is ‘not only that education and

347POLICIES OF ADULT EDUCATION

training throughout life helps to maintain economic competitiveness andemployability, but it is also the best way to fight against social exclusion’(Commission of the European Communities, 2000, p. 6). According to theMemorandum, ‘the coming decade must see the implementation of thisvision’(Commission of the European Communities, 2000, p. 3). These docu-ments reinforced the idea of individual responsibility, where everyone must‘be able to take their lives into their own hands’ (p. 7), and stressed that‘Lifelong Learning concerns everyone’s future, in a unique individual way’(p. 3). In the Memorandum on Lifelong Learning, the over-determination ofeducation on economic development and on the labour market is still moreapparent. This logic, present in the measures oriented towards the validationof non-formal and informal learning, is immediately observable.

In the Memorandum on Lifelong Learning, the validation of non-formal andinformal learning is always associated with the labour market; this is observablein the assertion ‘the methods used can uncover skills and competencies thatindividuals themselves may not have realized they possess and can offer toemployers’ (Commission of the European Communities, 2000, p. 15). Theseelements were later reinforced in the Council Recommendation on the valida-tion of non-formal and informal learning (European Commission, 2012). Thisdocument of political orientation centred on this field, states that ‘Europeancountries are increasingly emphasising the need to recognise the full range ofan individual’s knowledge, skills and competences’ with a view to ‘making themusable for further studies or advancement in work’ (European Commission,2013). The validation of non-formal and informal learning can bring advantagesto the labour market; it ‘would make clear which skills are available in the Euro-pean workforce’, in other words, ‘facilitating a better match between skills andlabour demand […] a transferability of skills between companies and sectors[…] helping citizens move around the EU to study and work’ (EuropeanCommission, 2013).

The validation of non-formal and informal learning seems to have becomeone of the measures of this ‘strategy’, registered in the Memorandum on Life-long Learning, which makes it possible to understand the emergence of thepublic policies of several Member States over the last decade. This is noticeablein the statement ‘it is absolutely essential to develop high quality systems for theAccreditation of Prior and Experiential Learning, and to promote their applica-tion in a wide variety of contexts’ (Commission of the European Communities,2000, p. 15). The development of common European principles for validationof non-formal and informal learning is a central element of this strategy. It aimsat a greater visibility and a more balanced valuing of knowledge and competenc-es. This field is considered a priority, as there is a will to implement it in allEuropean Union countries: ‘innovative forms of assessment and recognition area priority area for action. What needs to be done to establish Accreditation ofPrior and Experiential Learning-type systems in all the Member States?’(Com-mission of the European Communities, 2000, p. 16). The diffusion of good prac-tice is a strategy very often adopted by the European Union, to encourageMember States to look for mechanisms to validate what is learnt in non-formaland informal education. Financial support is another measure whose purpose isto guarantee the development of the systems of the validation of non-formal

348 C. CAVACO ET AL.

and informal learning: ‘the European Social Fund has been used in some coun-tries to develop validation systems’ (European Commission, 2012, p. 4).

The Memorandum on Lifelong Learning identifies structuring messages, suchas ‘the natural outcomes of a decade during which lifelong learning has oncemore risen to the top of national and international policy agendas’ (Commis-sion of the European Communities, 2000, p. 6). The language, centred on thisstrong message, generates a conjunction of political orientations thereafter, asso-ciated with an objective of promotion relating to the convergence of public poli-cies in education and training. But the White Paper often says that these‘suggestions, guidelines and aims are intended to support and supplement edu-cation and training policies, the responsibility for which rests first and foremostwith national, regional and local authorities’ (European Commission, 1995,p. 3). However, we already have here an educational policy that may appear‘almost ‘underground’, […] aiming at being invisible’ (Novoa, 1998, p. 100) asa policy. In any case, these general orientations are already European Union pol-icies, capable of influencing national public policies, for various reasons, even ifthis is not quite admitted. These orientations have not been recognized asEuropean Union policy, which has made it impossible, for the past two decades,to discuss and assess them publicly, among all those concerned (Novoa, 1998).

The European Union’s education and training policy, which integrates thevalidation of non-formal and informal learning, was included in the new politi-cal modes of action, with the production and diffusion of a speech (Barroso,2006), which was widely repeated in various papers and whose surreptitious pur-pose aimed at influencing Member States’ policies. Since 1995, the EuropeanUnion’s statements have become more and more directive. In 1995, the docu-ments evoked orientations of support and complementarity and admitted thatthe conception of policies was the competence and responsibility of each Mem-ber State. The statements in the Memorandum on Lifelong Learning, in 2000,are more directive, since they mention the importance of guaranteeing the har-monization of policies in the logic of lifelong learning in all Member States.This evolution is also obvious in the case of the validation of non-formal andinformal learning. In 1995, the importance of the validation of non-formal andinformal learning was only referred to, whereas, in 2000, it was stated that it isnecessary to guarantee political measures at that level in all the Member States.In the Proposal for a Council Recommendation on the validation of non-formaland informal learning (European Commission, 2012), it is stated that ‘the cur-rent initiative recommends common lines of action to be implemented at thelevel of the Member States with some European support. It will propose actionsthat will need implementation at EU and Member State level’ (European Com-mission, 2012, p. 9).

To guarantee this European policy agenda on the validation of non-formaland informal learning, the European Union shifted from rhetoric to action. Inrecent decades it has adopted a logic of post-bureaucratic regulation (Maroy,2008), with a large diversity of tools, such as the documents broadcasting thestatements and the orientation of the national policies (reports, studies, recom-mendations, the European Inventory and the European Qualifications Frame-work), the sharing of relevant practices, peer learning, financial and fundingarrangements, assessment and comparative studies. To ensure the regular moni-toring and evaluation of lifelong learning policy in the Member States, a new

349POLICIES OF ADULT EDUCATION

open method of co-ordination was proposed which ‘involves fixing Europeanguidelines and timetables for achieving specific agreed goals, establishing indica-tors and benchmarks in order to compare the best practices […] regular moni-toring, evaluation and peer review progress’ (Commission of the EuropeanCommunities, 2000, p. 3). This new open method of co-ordination consists of astrategy of regulation of the Member States, directed towards convergence inthe implementation of choices privileged by the European Union. The compro-mises defined by each are evaluated a posteriori. To facilitate supranational reg-ulation and justify financial resources, Member States are invited to providequantitative information. This has been encouraged by the idea of accountabil-ity: in this case, quantitative data have more importance than the adequacy andrelevance of the process, which of course has effects on public policy.

In the field of validation of non-formal and informal learning in Portugaland France, the influence of the European Union’s orientations is noticeable inthe normative framework. In Portugal, all the norms related to the validation ofnon-formal and informal learning mention lifelong learning for professionalinclusion, progression and mobility (Cavaco, 2009). The legal regulation thatset up the framework for the non-formal and informal learning validation systembetween 2001 and 2011 underlined that ‘the usefulness of this service […] isincluded in the European strategy for employment and in the national plan foremployment’ (262/2001 Act). In Portugal, the validation of the non-formal andinformal learning system appeared in 2001, which is significant. The Proposalfor a Council Recommendation on the validation of non-formal and informallearning stated that the validation of non-formal and informal learning ‘hasbeen part of the European policy agenda since 2001’ (European Commission,2012, p. 3).

In France, government introduced a legal framework which asserted that ‘Val-idation des Acquis de l’Experience’ (VAE) should meet a range of objectives:

� to have stable and socially recognized criteria to encourage transparency inthe evolution of the accreditation system (reducing the 17,000 qualifica-tion titles);

� to contribute to the wider recognition of various sources of learning relat-ing to professional, associational or voluntary situations;

� to build new forms of professional equality;� to encourage the individualization of training bringing it as close as possi-

ble to individual needs for the benefit of society and the needs of thelabour market;

� to launch a reform of vocational training; and to give a new definition tocontinuing training in terms of lifelong training.

Moreover, it appears that all these missions cannot be achieved without equatingthe economic and social environment. From this perspective, the area of appli-cation of VAE could not exclude certain professional areas or ignore certainpartnerships between different companies, while the international dimensionimplied that European harmonization of diplomas and of training sessionsattended abroad.

The European Union’s political orientations on education and training seemto have had a considerable influence on the conception and implementation of

350 C. CAVACO ET AL.

Member States’ policies, particularly in the validation of non-formal and infor-mal learning. In the various countries that have adopted validation of non-for-mal and informal learning systems, such as Portugal and France, we see not onlysimilar public orientations, but also comparable organizational elements andmethodologies. For instance, in those two systems, there are a first phase of wel-come, diagnosis and orientation, then the preparation of a file/portfolio, recog-nition and finally, the accreditation of acquired experience. In both countries,in order to achieve this accreditation, a jury is in charge of the deliberation onpartial or total accreditation. Also, the candidates are tutored throughout theprocess, with a mixed methodology based on a biographical approach involvinganalysis of activities and a stock taking of competences. The diffusion of thegood practice appears to be a very efficient strategy in the harmonization of thistype of practices, both for organizations and methodologies. In spite of all theregulatory mechanisms imposed by the European Union—in order to guaranteethe harmonization of policies and procedures—the Member States retain a cer-tain amount of autonomy, which allows them to (re)-appropriate RVAE and toconsider new configurations with regard to the European Union’s orientations.Besides it seems that the appropriation of these policies for each country alsodepends on national sociocultural and sociopolitical factors. We shall now ana-lyse these factors.

The validation of non-formal and informal learning at the nationalsociocultural and sociopolitical level: the specificities

The various Member States have invested heavily in public policies for the recog-nition and validation of non-formal and informal learning for young people andadults during the last 12 years. Significant differences between the systems ofthe various countries, in particular with regard to the organization, operation,and methodologies implemented, can be identified. These differences resultfrom each country’s specificities, history and social, cultural, political and eco-nomic dynamics. The implementation of the validation of non-formal and infor-mal learning system is marked by each country’s specificities. Therefore, howcan France and Portugal be compared? This produces a diversity and wealth ofpractices in the European context; hybrid logics are common. In order to beable to take consideration of the historical, systemic and cultural differencesbetween the countries, practices are determined by supranational objectives,yet allowing national specificities to arise. This leads to paradoxes and tensionswhich are also sometimes the cause of an increase in the complexity of thesepractices.

In Portugal, the emergence of a validation system for non-formal and infor-mal learning can be accounted for by the influence of the European Union’sregulatory orientations and mechanisms. However, the orientations and imple-mentation of the system itself can be explained by the influence of the country’shistorical and social elements (Cavaco, 2009). Between 2001 and 2007, the sys-tem for validation of non-formal and informal learning centred on fundamentalteaching, in order to allow the awarding of certificates at the three lowest levelsof schooling (four, six and nine years of schooling). Orienting the validation ofnon-formal and informal learning with a view to obtaining a fundamental schoolcertificate is accounted for by the relatively low level of development of

351POLICIES OF ADULT EDUCATION

schooling in Portugal in comparison with other European countries. ‘[I]n 2001,63% of the adults over 18 had not completed the nine year fundamental teach-ing, which represents 5 million Portuguese people’ (Cavaco, 2009, p. 153).

In Portugal, this system was oriented only towards adults with low academicqualifications, with a view to the awarding of a basic school certificate. This wasalso considered as an issue of social justice. In their childhood, these adults hadnot had the opportunity to complete elementary schooling because they wereforced to leave school in order to work very early to support their family finan-cially. In spite of their low academic level, some had gained considerable learn-ing outside school, all through their lives. Between 1974 and 1976—a periodmarked, in Portugal, by numerous social movements—the possibility emerged,through public policies, of obtaining the four-year elementary school certificateby preparation of a portfolio (Melo & Benavente, 1978). This was an embryonicform of the validation of non-formal and informal learning system developed inthe country after 2001. The orientation of the validation system of non-formaland informal learning toward elementary schooling and the particular featuresof the adults addressed (because of their low level of schooling), also accountfor other differences in Portugal. The adults follow this whole process of valida-tion on site, in a specialized centre (the New Opportunities Centre), in smallgroups, with the support of tutors and trainers. When the adult meet the accred-itation jury, seeking to avoid a denial of recognition, the tutor has alreadyanalysed the applicant’s portfolio with all his/her colleagues.

In France, the validation of acquired experience is one of the fundamentalelements of the 2002 law on social modernization.6 Historically, various stepshad been initiated by the institutionalization of the process for the engineeringdiploma in 1934. It is a right providing the opportunity to convert personalexperience, whether professional or social, into a degree, a title or a professionalcertificate. Indeed, these measures ‘make it possible for anybody who has beenactive for at least three years to validate their experience with a view to getting adegree or a title with a professional finality’7 associated with qualification levelof the individuals. These measures changed the traditional pattern by which cer-tification was the product of higher education or professional training. Fromthen on, learning through professional and social experience, in the widestsense, making it possible to acquire knowledge, know-how or a way of life andcertain habits (Dubar, 2001), could in theory be considered equivalent to train-ing, thanks to the award of the same accredited and recognized certification.The means of transmitting know-how, attitudes and knowledge, the foundationsof the candidates’ skills, must all be present in the candidates’ reflections—albeit that they are not aware of the differences between what they believe theyknow and what they actually know, or between legitimate and illegitimate knowl-edge. In the case of the higher education training model, on which a large partof the assessment system is based, the validation project—the corner-stone ofthe validation of acquired experience scheme through which the candidatesdescribe their professional and social experience—is meant to prove the cogni-tive skills of analysis, synthesis and writing are equivalent to those attested by thetargeted diploma. Furthermore, the project has a value of its own, since it mayreveal abilities to express oneself, to synthesize, to give a relevant account ofone’s career, to have an objective reflection on one’s learning, to ask questionsrelated to the teaching received and show an ability to find one’s position in

352 C. CAVACO ET AL.

relationship to a training project. The analysis of practitioners’ remarks as to themeasures concerning the Recognition and Validation of non-formal and infor-mal learning made the process appear too cumbersome (Mlekus, 1998): itdemands significant cultural prerequisites and makes those candidates are leastfamiliar with written procedures beholden to its complexity. But various viewsare already being voiced concerning possible reworking of the validation project.Some assessors say they want to see the candidates benefit from more autonomyin the transcription, others call for greater guidance. The degree of autonomygiven at universities by the validation project implies more personal investmentin its written form and calls for capacities of document structuring that not allcandidates possess. This is a real handicap for those who lack these capacities,since their project is, in general, the only vector between themselves and thejury. Candidates belonging to a field of activities linked to the tertiary sectorrather than the industrial sector find it easier to describe their professional activ-ities. However, in France, the training system generally gives excessive value toabstract intelligence compared with concrete experience, and to theoretical pro-cedures at the expense of practical experience. The requirement to describepractical reality, to convert it from a practical to a theoretical pattern, from thetime of action to that of its description, forces candidates to eliminate the trans-formation. When describing their activity, the candidates have to ‘de-time’ theaction in order to make it ‘timeless’ in a restitution that supposes ‘de-contextual-izing’ the time spent at work. Indeed, everyday activities are conditioned byimperatives of managing human financial resources, of reaching objectives andlinking each activity to a result in a collective structure. So these activities differfrom the time spent on a validation project where transcription can be alteredand refined so as to find the adequate formulation, without any other constraintthan to respect the jury’s deadline. A difference also lies in frequency, since thetime of action is renewed every day, whereas the time of description is only thatof an introspective process.

The European Union has an education and training policy, the European Pol-icy Agenda, which includes the validation of non-formal and informal learning.In order to guarantee the materialization of this policy in the various MemberStates in relation to the validation of non-formal and informal learning, essen-tially post-bureaucratic regulation mechanisms (Barroso, 2006; Maroy, 2006,2008) are mobilized. In the case of the validation of non-formal and informallearning, these regulation mechanisms are quite varied and, very efficiently,make it possible to ensure the adoption of political measures in the variousMember States. These mechanisms comprise documents of general application,recommendations, the joint study and definition of measures to be adopted inspaces of political decision involving each country’s leaders, systems of referencespecifying key competences, common European Frameworks, the sharing of rele-vant good practice, financing, the quantitative definition of objectives, assess-ment studies and comparative analyses. These regulation mechanisms, definedinside the European Union, can influence, through a cascade effect, thenational policies (macro level) of the validation of non-formal and informallearning, the policies of the organizations in charge of the implementation ofthis system (meso level), as well as the organization and functioning of the prac-tices (micro). This analysis shows how the European policy agenda influencesand has consequences for the organization and application of validation of

353POLICIES OF ADULT EDUCATION

non-formal and informal learning systems in the two countries. The specificitiesof the validation of non-formal and informal learning systems, which we haveidentified for Portugal and France, result from certain spaces of autonomywhich are still left to the Member States, so that they can take these cultural,social and educational specificities into account.

Complexity and paradoxes

Through the policies of recognition and validation, it is possible to establish arelationship between the knowledge and capacities acquired through non-formaland informal experience, and through more academic and disciplinary knowl-edge. This confronts these practices with greater complexity (Jobert, 2005; Pi-neau, 1997). Identifying, clarifying and analysing acquired learning andestablishing relationships with academic and disciplinary knowledge are very dif-ficult and often generate numerous questions. The public policies of the valida-tion of non-formal and informal learning have allowed the diffusion of littleknown and complex social and educational practices. Also, it is common to denythe complexity inherent in these practices. This rests on a major paradox,because if the methodologies are directed towards humanistic concerns, theirends are oriented towards economic development and the solving of social prob-lems—associated with a policy of human resources management (Berger, 1991;Canario, 2006; Lietard, 1999). Nevertheless, the methodological approach to thevalidation of non-formal and informal learning system is founded on the episte-mological revalorization of adult experience and leads to a reflection on andclarification of the testing of potential in terms of personal development andtraining. However, the ends appear too much centred on obtaining certificationto facilitate social inclusion, progression and professional mobility.

This validation of non-formal and informal learning, claimed by some socialgroups as a strategy of social emancipation and personal development, wasemployed for this exploitation. Due to the current crisis, the validation of non-formal and informal learning was asserted as ‘more relevant than ever for thefunctioning of the labour market and for enhancing competitiveness and eco-nomic growth’ (EC, 2012, p. 10). The validation of non-formal and informallearning system, in Portugal, is very much marked by this paradox. The policiesand practices come from a more global strategy, in which adults assume fullresponsibility for themselves by resorting to ‘self-help’ (Bourdieu, 1998, p. 10),in order to solve structural problems—economic development, unemploymentand the low level of schooling of the Portuguese population. The evaluation ofadults’ experience tends then to be under consideration from a managerialpoint of view, the political calculation being, in that case, primarily that the vali-dation of non-formal and informal learning will allow the certification of adultsin a short time, and at lower cost.

In Portugal, the coexistence of these two logics generates tensions, and con-tributes to increases complexity in these social practices, as appears during theanalysis of the statements of team members of NCO:8 ‘The Centre has quantita-tive objectives to meet, but we work with people, we have a position of humanis-tic work [...] Imposing a given number to accredit does not seem fair and doesnot correspond to the type of work we do, we must pay attention to people’. InPortugal, imposing quantitative objectives for the validation of non-formal and

354 C. CAVACO ET AL.

informal learning, following a managerial logic, has meant great difficulties andtensions within the teams responsible for the implementation of the process.The objective was to accredit one million adults between 2005 and 2010. Thisbecame an obligation in order to ensure accountability and justify Europeanand national financing, causing dilemmas for the teams. Another person inter-viewed reveals this tension : ‘It is impossible to ensure a good job when imposeda logic of chain work […] It is impossible to do everything, choices must bemade : either we drop quality in order to get the imposed figures of accreditedcandidates or we give up figures to the benefit of the quality of the process’.The pressure to achieve quantitative objectives has negative effects on the orga-nization and functioning of the system, especially at the level of methodologiesand modes of working, as is underlined in this extract from an interview: ‘Adapt-ing the method to each individual would be the ideal solution, but there arehave quantitative objectives, which does not make things easy’. Or : ‘with somepeople, I would like to take more time for the process, in order to have moreinformation for the decision on the accreditation, but that is impossible becauseof the quantitative constraints’. The implementation of the validation ofnon-formal and informal learning is very complex, and what the actors in chargehave to say underlines the inconsistencies that cause tensions and dilemmas.

The European Union’s political statements orient the development of the val-idation of non-formal and informal learning systems towards ends of economicdevelopment, specifically in the labour market—professional inclusion, progres-sion and mobility. The normative framework for the validation of non-formaland informal learning in Portugal reproduces these EU statements. But, as vari-ous authors argue, there is no direct and linear relationship between the award-ing of a diploma and employment (Canario, 1999; Tanguy, 1986), because thelatter essentially depends on the dynamics of the economy. The studies ofnational assessments (Carneiro, 2010; Fernandes & Trindade, 2004) on the vali-dation of non-formal and informal learning systems re-enforce these authors’arguments and question the statements which frame the policies. The politicalstatements that legitimated the emergence of the political policies and the finan-cial investment in that field, between 2000 and 2010, have been mobilized, bythe Portuguese government, since 2011, to achieve these public policies - inresponse to the poor impact of the certification of adults on their ability to findwork and progress in their jobs, and their job mobility. There is here anotherparadox—the same argument which has given legitimacy to the emergence ofthese policies has, afterwards, concluded that these measures are inefficient forsolving the problems of the labour market. The assessment studies and researchhighlight the fact that there are very important results for accredited adults,such as, increased self-esteem and formative effects—the development of compe-tences in reading, writing and the use of new technologies (Cavaco, 2009).These effects are of a composite nature and of great importance in the lives ofthe adults concerned; they come from the educational potential of the method-ologies used in the accreditation; yet their importance in neither recognizednor much valued by the government.

In France, thanks to the validation of acquired experience and to the innova-tion scheme associated with it, there is the beginning of an important answer—even if there is no guarantee that the degrees awarded in initial and continuingtraining and by the recognition of experience have any real impact on the

355POLICIES OF ADULT EDUCATION

material and professional conditions of the people concerned, or that their wishto get trained always ensures them financial benefits. Some of those who advo-cate this scheme consider that it would help candidates ‘gain time and spendten less money than a classical training’ (Vilchien, Audige, Debeaupuis, & Segal,2005). However, practising the validation of non-formal and informal learningcalls for an ‘educational adjustment’, opposed to traditional forms of the ‘knowl-edge-power’ equation, where the relationship between teachers and learners isknown to be strongly unequal (Benhamou, 2005). This makes it necessary to payrenewed attention to modes of assessment.

However, the possibility of delivering a complete higher education degreeseems liable to modify the ‘principles of degree awarding and the social partplayed by these degrees. In the same way as the notion of skill’ (Tanguy & Rope,1994), the extensive use of this approach tends to ‘modify the cognitive and cul-tural models that prevail in the higher education sphere’ (Rope, 2005). Mobiliz-ing individual and collective knowledge and experiences can allow VAEcandidates to share and acquire the problematic encountered all along their val-idation project. In that sense, the recognition and validation contributes to anew reflection on learning which creates a moment of cooperative productionand exchange during which the candidate is at the centre of the learning pro-cess. Thus, all through the VAE process, the examiners make assessments ‘nolonger according to their own teaching, but to the evaluation of action-pro-duced knowledge, outside their own sphere of influence. This new posturechanges the very representation of the degree in question as the achievement ofan intellectual career, and thus as what can also be considered as the outcomeof an active career’ (Lenoir, 2002). Can this significantly undermine the powerthat the teaching researcher, partly consciously, exerts? Could it be one of theunspoken reasons for the resistance and misunderstandings which lie at the rootof tensions and conflicts within the university, where implementing these systemmeasures is accompanied by ‘an attempt to recompose hierarchies and newforms of domination’ (Rope, 2005)?

Thus, in their validation projects, candidates do not always make a distinctionbetween information that can be attractive to the jury and information that cancreate forms of resistance. The choice of information, the quality of the experi-ence they have acquired, and its sources, must be presented in a hierarchyaccording to different strategies—whether these elements are addressed, at uni-versity, to the human and social, natural or legal sciences. It, therefore, seemsnecessary for the candidate to have a better awareness of higher education val-ues and the boundaries of a discipline, so as to carefully mention such or such atype of experience, or to describe the acquired knowledge more explicitly. Iden-tifying the difficulties related to the whole process has helped to point out sev-eral problems: finding an agency or place to seek information and training,choosing the appropriate form of accreditation, discovering the competitionbetween institutions and departments (institutional dimension), getting approxi-mate information from the media and securing the funds necessary for theproject.

Hidden and even suppressed mechanisms have also surfaced in other aspectsof the project, in spite of an insidious internalization achieved by the candidates.Their perspectives all carry social and economical implications. They expresstheir motivations in terms of vocational reorientation, of a new job, of easier

356 C. CAVACO ET AL.

access to employment, of earning a degree, of reaching a high training stan-dard, of widening their field of knowledge, without admitting that there is a cor-relation between the success in the process and the motivational elements thatunderlie their project. Thus, acceptance of the constraints and suffering withwhich the candidates are confronted is proportional to the issues they have iden-tified. Therefore, partially consciously, they define a limit of profitability beyondwhich - if the material or symbolical benefits they can gain do not meet theirexpectations—they momentarily or permanently abandon the process. Amongthese constraints, those linked to the language rules and the internalization ofthe rules of writing set the candidates back to the conditions in which theyacquired them. This implies observing the training and qualification standardsof the population under study, and noting that the social and economic condi-tions under which language skills are acquired and used are directly related toschool experience. Language incompetence is also correlated with a careerlearning, unemployment and underemployment. That is why candidates submittheir expression to the norms of legitimate speech: indeed, it appears thatinformation of a political, economic or ideological nature is self-censored, asconfidential and sometimes linked to a non-official activity. If this information ismade public the institutions to which the candidates belong may be discredited.It cannot be denied that a critical outlook on the candidate’s professional envi-ronment is not a priority in the presentation of the validation project. However,some of these decisions (those coming from centralized managements, forexample) condition the development of the skills of the actors employed in theinstitutions, which are sometimes run according to social and economic policiesat odds with their stated mission.

Conclusion

This study on policies of adult education and training in Portugal and France,in particular, demonstrates one of the impacts of the European Union’s PolicyAgenda on the development of systems for validating non-formal and informallearning. Even if the European Union has underlined each Member State’s com-petence to originate their own education and training policies, the analysis ofthe statements shows that over the past two decades a European policy Agendahas strongly oriented, conditioned and influenced Member States’ educationand training policies. This project of a common education and training policy isnot made very clear but it influenced Brussels’ statements and actions ‘from theearly 70s, through a diverse series of instruments: community action (decisions,recommendations, resolutions, etc.), community programmes […], financingsand economic support’ (Novoa, 1998, p.101). This influence has increased overthe years and is also noticeable in relation to the validation of non-formal andinformal learning.

From the analysis of the documents identified above, it appears that, in 1995,common orientations were formulated in order to guarantee harmonization;then, in 2000, the importance of the regulation mechanisms was confirmed inorder to encourage the implementation of common measures. In 2012, the doc-uments mention a European Policy Agenda, which is a way of saying what hadnot been clearly said previously, i.e. that there is a European Union policy on

357POLICIES OF ADULT EDUCATION

the issues of education and training, particularly, for adult education and thevalidation of non-formal and informal learning. It is a well-known fact that, inthe more recent period, some pressure has been exerted on Member States toimplement various measures. Concerning the validation of non-formal and infor-mal learning, it has been made quite clear that some kind of system is to beimplemented in all the Member States ‘by 2015’ (EU, 2012, p. 7). The invest-ment in a variety of regulation instruments and the statements which areincreasingly oriented towards common lines of action, and in particular, to thevalidation of non-formal and informal learning systems, highlights the fact that‘the notion of the Member States’ sole competence has repeatedly been refutedby facts’ (Novoa, 1998, p. 106). Because of the diversity and efficiency of post-bureaucratic regulation mechanisms (Barroso, 2006; Maroy, 2006, 2008), a verysignificant influence from the European Union Policy Agenda is apparent in thefield of the validation of non-formal and informal learning, both in Portugaland in France. In spite of this, the validation of non-formal and informal learn-ing policies in these countries is also modified by the social, cultural and educa-tional specificities of each country. Thus, it is possible to say that public policieson the validation of non-formal and informal learning, in the two countries,result from interplay of joint, concomitant, transnational and national influenceswhose outcome is a form of hybridization. For this reason, antagonistic logicsare present in the system, causing paradoxes and increasing the complexity,already present in these practices. The validation of non-formal and informallearning system which was originally an aim of groups from civil society, withaims of personal development and emancipation, has been incorporated andpromoted by the European Union with ends oriented towards the labour market(Canario, 2006), and linked with an ‘economic logic’ (Novoa, 1998). This causesa paradox which is particularly visible for validation of non-formal and informallearning systems in the Portuguese and French cases.

The promotion of validation by the EU challenges the institutions of educa-tion and training for adults, the ethos of higher education teacher researchers,as well as the freedom of movement the candidates have in order to become theagents of their own futures—although they are not totally aware of all the con-straints they are confronted with during the process. It is thus possible to see towhat extent the process of recognition of non-formal and informal learning is ahigher education training model within the framework of lifelong training.Countries which have this orientation in their educational policy allow groupswhich lack normal prerequisite academic qualifications to be welcomed (forexample) into universities. However, it is now a fact that awareness of the diffi-culties the teaching researchers meet, both provokes reactions liable to createnew sources of conflict; and—when these difficulties emerge for candidates—inhibits their learning or even leads to drop out them (Besson, 2008). There-fore, can we infer that the law favours those who have best integrated the normsand expectancies of the system, and can convert their investment into materialand symbolical profit? The laws and articles concerning non-formal and infor-mal learning have found legitimacy in relation to social expectations. But thetrue cultural revolution in higher education training seems to lie in the law’spredisposition to make individuals the agents in a promising project that theycan dissociate from their present day situation, provided they are capable of areflexive process—though this is not explicitly explained to them. The

358 C. CAVACO ET AL.

importance of achieving quantitative results generates greater interventionism,which may induce great dynamism, but does not imply that the dynamics areassociated with visible results for individuals or collectivities.

Notes

1. The validation is based on the process of granting official status to competences, either throughthe award of certificates or through the grant of equivalence, credit units and validation ofgained competences. Social validation is measured through acknowledgement of the value ofcompetences by economic and social stakeholders.

2. The validation of a wide range of knowledge, know-how, skills and competences which peopledevelop throughout their lives, in different contexts.

3. The article length does not enable us to approach the characterization of non-formal and infor-mal learning systems in France and in Portugal. On the other hand, to look further into theanalyses on this subject, we suggest consulting the links: http://observal.eucen.eu/, https://www.jugendpolitikineuropa.de/downloads/4-20-2198/european_inventory_2005_final_report.pdf.

4. Non-formal learning is defined by Learning which is embedded in planned activities not neces-sarily explicitly designated as learning (in terms of learning objectives, learning time or learningsupport), but which contains an important learning element, it’s intentional from the ‘learner’s’point of view.

5. Informal learning is learning resulting from daily work-related, family or leisure activities. It isnot organized and structured (in terms of objectives, time and support). Informal learning is inmost cases unintentional from the ‘learner’s’ perspective.

6. ‘Journal Officiel’ dated 28 April 2002, decree nr. 2002-615 (26.04.2002) taken for the enforce-ment of article 900-1 of the work chart and articles L.335-6 of the education chart.

7. M. Gerard Lindeberg, socialist deputy, speaking in a first reading at the National Assembly.8. New Center of Opportunities.

References

Antunes, F. (2005). Globalizacao e Europeizacao das Polıticas Educativas. Percursos, processos emetamorfoses [Globalization and Europeanisation of educational policies: Pathways, processesand transformations]. Sociologia, Problemas e Praticas, 47, 125–143. Retrieved from http://www.scielo.gpeari.mctes.pt/pdf/spp/n47/n47a07.pdf

Barroso, J. (2006). O Estado e a Educacao: a regulacao transnacional, a regulacao nacional e a reg-ulacao local [The state and education: the transnational regulation, national regulation andlocal regulation]. In J. Barroso (Org.), A regulacao das polıticas publicas de educacao. Espacos, dina-micas e actores (pp. 41–70). Lisboa: Educa.

Benhamou, A.-C. (2005). La validation des acquis de l’experience en actes. Rapport de mission sur l´applica-tion de la Validation des Acquis de l´Experience [The validation of prior learning. Mission reporton the implementation of the validation of prior learning]. Report to the Prime Minister,FILLON F.

Berger, G. (1991). A experiencia pessoal e profissional na certificacao de saberes: a pessoa ou aemergencia de uma sociedade global [The personal and professional experience in validationof prior learning: The person or the emergence of a global society]. Novos rumos para o ensinotecnologico e profissional (pp. 233–243). GETAP/Ministerio da Educacao: Porto.

Besson, E. (2008). Valoriser l’acquis de l’experience: une evaluation du dispositif de VAE [Recognition ofprior learning: An evaluation of the device validation of prior learning]. A report to the PrimeMinister, FILLON F. by the Secretary in State in charge of the Prospective, the Evaluation ofpublic policy and the development of numerical economy.

Bouchet, H. (2005). La societe de la connaissance dans le cadre de la strategie de Lisbonne [The knowledgesociety in the context of the Lisbon strategy]. Avis et Rapports du Conseil Economique etSocial, 2005, 56 p.

Bourdieu, P. (1998). Contrafogos (acts of resistance: Against the tyranny of the market). Oeiras: Celta Editora.Canario, R. (1999). Educacao de Adultos. Um campo e uma problematica [Adult education. One area and

one issue]. Lisboa: Educa.Canario, R. (2003). O impacto social das ciencias da educacao [The social impact of science education].

VII Congresso da Sociedade Portuguesa de Ciencias da Educacao (pp. 1–23). Evora: Universid-ade de Evora (Documento Policopiado).

359POLICIES OF ADULT EDUCATION

Canario, R. (2006). Formacao e Adquiridos Experienciais: entre a Pessoa e o Indivıduo [Trainingand experiential learning: Between the person and the individual]. In G. Figari, P. Rodrigues,M. P. Alves, & P. Valois (Orgs.), Avaliacao de competencias e aprendizagens experienciais. Saberes,modelos e metodos (pp. 35–46). Lisboa: Educa.

Carneiro, R. (2010). Iniciativa Novas Oportunidades: Resultados da Avaliacao Externa (2009–2010) [Newopportunities initiative: Results of external assessment (2009–2010)]. Lisboa: Agencia Nacionalpara a Qualificacao.

Cavaco, C. (2009). Adultos Pouco Escolarizados—Polıticas e Praticas de Formacao [Low-schooled adults -Policies and practices of education and training]. Lisboa: Educa.

Colardyn, D., & Bjornavold, J. (2004). Validation of formal, non-formal and informal learning: Policyand practices in EU Member States. European Journal of Education, XXXIX(1), 69–89.

Comission of the European Communities. (2000). A memorandum of lifelong learning. Brussels: Euro-pean Commission. Retrieved from http://www.bologna-berlin2003.de/pdf/Memorandum-Eng.pdf

Correia, A., & Caramelo, J. (2003). Da mediacao local ao local da mediacao: figuras e polıticas [Localmediation of the place of mediation: Figures and politicies]. Educacao, Sociedade & Culturas,20, 167–191.

Dale, R. (2000). Globalization and education: Demonstrating a “common world educational culture”or locating a “globally structured educational agenda”? Educational Theory, 50, 427–448.

Dale, R. (2004). Globalizacao e educacao: demonstrando a existencia de uma “Cultura EducacionalMundial Comum” ou localizando uma “Agenda Globalmente Estruturada para a Educacao”?Educacao & Sociedade, 25, 423–460. Retrieved from http://www.cedes.unicamp.br

Deslauriers, J.-P., & Kerisit, M. (1997). Le devis de recherche qualitative [The estimate of qualitativeresearch]. In J. Poupart, J.-P. Deslauriers, L.-H. Groulx, A. Laperriere, R. Mayer, & A. Pires(Eds.), La recherche qualitative. Enjeux epistemologiques et methodologiques (pp. 85–111). Montreal:Gaetan Morin.

Dubar, C. (2000). La formation professionnelle continue [The continuing education] (4ª ed.). Paris: LaDecouverte.

Dubar, C. (2001). La crise des identites professionnelles [The crisis of professional identity]. Paris: PUF.European Commission. (1995). White paper on education and training. Teaching and learning. Towards the

learning society. European Commission: Brussels. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/lan-guages/documents/doc409_en.pdf

European Commission. (2013). European agenda for adult learning and recent policy developments.Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/adult/agenda_en.htm

European Union Council (2011). Council resolution on a renewed European agenda for adult learn-ing. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2011:372:0001:0006:EN:PDF

European Union Council. (2012). Council recommendation of 20 December 2012 on the validationof non-formal and informal learning. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2012:398:0001:0005:EN:PDF

Felouzis, G., & Hanhart, S. (2011). Politiques educatives et evaluation: nouvelles tendances, nouveauxacteurs [Educational policies and assessment: New trends, new actors]. In G. Felouzis, & S.Hanhart (Eds.), Gouverner l´education par les nombres ? Usages, debats et controverses (pp. 7–31).Bruxelas: De Boeck.

Fernandes, P., & Trindade, S. (2004). O impacto do reconhecimento e certificacao de competencias adquiridasao longo da vida. Uma mais valia para uma vida com mais valor [The impact of the recognition ofprior learning. A contribution to a life with more value]. Lisboa: Direccao-Geral de FormacaoVocacional.

Giddens, A. (1987). La constitution de la societe, elements de la theorie de la structuration [The constitutionof society: Outline of the theory of structuration]. Paris: P.U.F. Coll. Quadrige.

Jobert, G. (2005). Les difficiles questions adressees par la VAE a l´analyse du travail [The questionsposed by the recognition of prior learning at the job analysis]. In P. Rozario (Dir.), Enjeux poli-tiques et systemes de reconnaissance des apprentissages. Actes du Colloque Europeen (pp. 7–15). Tome2. Paris: CNAM.

Lebouteillec, N. (2002). Definition d’un niveau mezzo d’analyse comparative a partir de l’histoire critique duconcept de ‘modele scandinave’ [Definition of a meso level of comparative analysis from the criti-cal history of the concept of Scandinavian style]. Unite de comparaisons internationales 13.

Lenoir, H. (2002). La VAE: une nouvelle donne pour l’Universite [Validation of acquired experienceknowledge. A new given for the university]. Connexions, 78, 91–108.

Maroy, C. (2006). Ecole, regulation et marche. PUF: Une comparaison de six espaces scolaires locaux en Europe[School, regulation and market. A comparison of six local school areas in Europe]. Paris:Presses Universitaires de France.

Maroy, C. (2008). Towards a post-bureaucratic regulation of the education systems in Europe? Sociolo-gie et societes, 40, 31–55.

360 C. CAVACO ET AL.

Melo, A., & Benavente, A. (1978). Educacao Popular em Portugal (1974–1976) [Popular education inPortugal (1974–1976)]. Lisboa: Livros Horizonte.

Mlekus, N. (1998). La validation des acquis professionnels reste une procedure trop lourde [The validation ofprior learning one device very heavy]. Decembre: Le Monde Initiatives Emploi.

Morin, E. (2005). Introduction a la pensee complexe [Introduction to complex thought]. Paris: Editionsdu Seuil.

Morin, E. (2011). La voie—Pour l’avenir de l’humanite [The way: For the future of humanity]. Paris:Fayard.

Novoa, A. (1998). Histoire & Comparaison [History & comparison] (Essai sur l´Education). Lisboa:Educa.

Pineau, G. (1997). La reconnaissance des acquis: deux idees simples qui posent des problemes com-plexes [Recognition of prior learning: Two simple ideas that pose complex problems]. In G.Pineau, B. Lietard, & M. Chaput (Coords.), Reconnaıtre les acquis. Demarches d´exploration person-nalisee (pp. 11–17). Paris: L´Harmattan.

Rope, F. (2005). La VAE a l’Universite francaise: entre savoirs et ‘experience’ [Recognition of prior learn-ing in the French university: Between knowledge and experience]. Cahiers de la Recherchesur l’Education et les Savoirs, no. 4.

Tanguy, L. (Ed.) (1986). L´introuvable relation formation/emploi. Un etat de recherche en France [The rela-tionship training/employment. The research in France]. Paris: La Documentation Francaise.

Tanguy, L., & Rope, F. (Dir.). (1994). Savoirs et competences. De l’usage de ces notions dans l’ecole et dansl’entreprise [Knowledge and competences. The use of these concepts in school and company].Paris: L’Harmattan.

Tessaring, M., & Wannan, J. (2004). Vocationnal education and training-Key to the future. Lisbon-Copenha-gen-Maastricht: Mobilizing for 2010. Office for Publications of the European Communities. Cede-fop synthesis of the Maastricht Study.

Van Zanten, A. (2006). Interdependencia competitiva e as logicas de accao das escolas: uma com-paracao europeia [Competitive interdependence and the logic of action of schools: A Euro-pean comparison]. In J. Barroso (Org.), A regulacao das polıticas publicas de educacao. Espacos,dinamicas e actores (pp. 191–226). Lisboa: Educa.

Van Zanten, A. (2011). Les politiques d´education [The education policies]. Paris: PUF.Vilchien, D., Audige, T., Debeaupuis, J., & Segal, P. (2005). Validation des Acquis de l’Experience: du

droit individuel a l’atout collectif [The recognition of prior learning: Individual right to collectivegood]. Rapport no. 2005-067, Inspection generale des affaires sociales.

Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.

361POLICIES OF ADULT EDUCATION