All Inclusive - Ldv Partnership

Key competences of inclusive education

A study based on international research
carried out with the support of the LdV Programme

Introduction

The Leonardo da Vinci Programme (LdV) aimed at “developing cooperation in the field of vocational education and training” was created in 1994 by a Council decree of the European Union. The main objective of this program launched in 1995 is to develop vocational education and training through transnational cooperation and exchange of best practices, the harmonization of qualification frameworks and the diffusion of the European Community's vocational training policy. The long term aim of the projects supported by the programme is that experiences gained through mobilities and professional cooperation materialise as actual methodological innovation inthe vocational education systems of the member states. Hungary joined the LdV Programme in September 1997.

The Leonardo da Vinci Programme is aimed at improving and strengthening the system of vocational education and trainingthrough partnerships. It also aims at relating individual National Qualification Frameworks to the European Qualification Framework and thus enhancing professional mobility.

Our partnership programme entitled „All Inclusive” – partnership for strengtheningsocial inclusion” realised the below described project with the support of the LdV Programme.

Our Partnership Programme

We named our partnership programme „All Inclusive” – partnership for strengthening social inclusion”. The expression “all inclusive” is often used by the catering and hotel trade, butin our case it refers to inclusive education. The programme started in 2011 and ends in 2013.

Our partnership programme focuses on two main target groups, and the professional activities related to these groups. One was the group of infants and small children living with disabilities, in the years preceding their entering formal education (kindergarten). During the mobilities we examined the methods used in early intervention and how the inclusive approach is applied from the very beginning. We have been also looking for examples of how the early integration of this group is realised, what kind of inclusion strategies and early intervention methods are being used in the partner countries.

The other target group of our project was adults leaving formal education and/or with reduced capacity to work. During the mobilities in the partner-countries we got to know the activity and actual projects of our partner-organisations. We have seen many creative projects, mainly aimed at placing these individuals in integrated employment. In case of several projects we had the opportunity to observe various phases of the process, from the selection to the actual placement of the clients.

Our partnership programme included seven partner organisations from five different countries. During the programme we have visited all of these countries. Below we describe very briefly the organisations participating inthe programme.

1.      CooperativaSociale ARCA, Italy: the second biggest social „cooperative” in Toscana, with more than five hundred employees. The organisation provides various services for people living with disabilities, from home-care to training programmes and recreational activities.

2.      Pegaso Network dellaCooperazioneSociale, Italy: this network also operates in Tuscany, as a consortium it comprises several other organisations operating in the social field. They provide vocational training programmes for professionals working in the social fieldand for adults with reduced capacity to work, to improve their chances to be employed on the labour market.

3.      FORTSCHRITT KonduktivesFörderzentrumgemeinnützige GmbH, Germany: the biggest conductive educational organisation of Germany, with more than forty institutions all over the country. The organisation focuses on people with impairment due to cerebral palsy (including all age groups from infants subject to early intervention to the elderly). They operate several integrated nurseries and kindergartens, a network of travelling conductors and they also organise recreational programmes for the young disabled.(Conductors are specially trained educators who deal with the complex development of motor disordered children and adults whose disfunction was due to damages to the central nervous system. Conductive education is based on the idea that despite the damage, the nervous system still possesses the capacity to form new neural connections, and this ability can be mobilised with the help of an active learning process guided by conductors. Conductor convey the needs of the socio-cultural environment to the child and create concrete educational content through specific requirements with the final aim of helping disabled people reintegrate into society and lead an independent life.)

4.      Laura House, Transylvania, Romania: the organisation operates in Barót, a small town in Kovásznacounty. They try to help young adults living with disabilities to find employment and also organise recreational programmes for them.

5.      NBDN-VTC (National Business Development Network Vocational Training Centre), Bulgaria: the organisation is one of the most important vocational training organisations in Bulgaria, they provide more than ninety training programmes all over the country. This is the only one of our partner organisations dealing uniquely with vocational training, and they joined the partnership with the definite aim of finding new elements and contents to include in their training system.

6.      Progetti Italian-Hungarian Non-profitLtd., Hungary: the only non-profit Ltd. of the partnership. The Ltd. has vast experience in assisting adults with reduced work capacity in finding employment. The organisation had previously successfully managed aLdv TOI (Transfer of Innovation) partnership programme.

7.      Örökmozgó Non-profit  Association, Hungary: the associationfocuses mainly at helping the rehabilitation and social integration of young adults with impairment due to cerebral palsy, through organising non-formal learning opportunities and assisting them in finding proper employment. The organisation has managed several national and international youth exchange programmes, meetings and summer camps for mixed groups of disabled and „healthy” participants. Members of the Örökmozgó association worked as the coordinating team of the present research.

The participating organisations can be divided into two major groups: vocational training organisations and NGOs (civil organisations, non-profit ltd.-s) working directly with the disabled. The diagram1 shows the percentage distribution of the two groups

Diagram 1. : Percentage distribution of the participating organisations.

The main guidelines of our research

According to our experiences, due to the strengthening of social inclusion and the diffusion of inclusive education,in recent years new phenomena have appeared in Europe. In certain European countries segregated education – educational institutions dealing uniquely with the disabled – had been closed for good. In most European countries the government obliges middle- and larger companies to employ a certain percentage of people with reduced work capacity. The demand for equal chances andtolerance seems to be more and more present in social consciousness. Parallel to this trend new expectations have arisen concerning professionsworking with the disabled.

Our research was triggered by this need, we aimed at mapping the key elements that made the projects and organisations examined during this partnership programme successful. We are convinced that the key of this success lies in the personal skills and attitudes of the professionals, therefore we attempted to define more precisely the main conditions of outstanding professional success through “analysing” them personally. The validity of our research and results is in reality also based on the fact that the participating professionals have all worked very successfully within their own organisations in the inclusive education of people living with disabilities.  

First we wanted to approach this issue from the direction of qualifications. That is, we wanted to examine what was the original profession and qualification of the professionals dealing with inclusive education of people living with disabilities within the participating organisations. We hoped to be able to find common elements, when comparing the training structures and contents of these professions, whichcould be transferred to another, or to a new vocational training system. Our attempt failed, since we haven’t found logical, comparable descriptions of the participants’ qualifications, for several reasons:

·         The professionals working with our target groups have very different qualification levels, for instance psychologist, conductor, social worker, pedagogues, special need teachersand assistants, etc.

·         Only younger professionals were able to provide detailed and specific curricula related to their qualifications, since in the times the older and more experiences colleagues got their degrees, it wasn’t common in education.

·         Many professionals participating in our research had several diplomas, degrees and other professional qualifications.

·         The structure of national educational/training systems is very different in the countries participating in the programme

·         Last, but not least we have realised, that the competences we were looking for in the curricula were in factmainly acquired in non-formal learning.

The above listed factors lead us to change our methodology and aim at collecting those competences that are considered vital by the professionals working with people with disabilities. In order to collect and define those competences, and create a competence-profile we needed a model for this competence-profile. This model is a tool which helps to define the elements, that is: competenceswhich constitute our competence-profile. Creating such model naturally doesn’t (and cannot) have tightly fixed rules, since it has to be applicable to the specific organisational and training systems of different countries.

A brief theoretical background of our research

In the recent years it has become a generally accepted expectation towards adult education (vocational education and training, higher education) to prepare students for the demands of the labour market, that is, to meet the requirements of further employers. This trend was first true for vocational education and training, but it has become generally accepted in all higher education. This phenomenon has also transformed our perception of education in general: higher education and vocational training have to function as up-to-date services. This can only be achieved if the institutions of education take into consideration the actual demand for professionals defined by the economy and the world of employers. The labour market defines its demand in competences. These are the competences that form a bridge between education and the labour market.

When dealing with this issue, the concept of Learning Outcomes (LeO) has a major importance, our research is also based on this approach. A learning outcome is the particular knowledge, skill or behaviour that a student is expected to exhibit after a period of study. In case of vocational education and training this outcome is defined as competences. The concept of outcome-based learning doesn’t only prevail in the world of higher education and vocational training, but is present on all levels. In our case we approach this trend in relation to vocational education. This is even more justified, as the concept of learning outcomes appeared first, in the eighties, in the field of vocational education and training, parallel to the above mentioned reforms aiming at improve labour market relevancy of qualifications in order to decrease unemployment among young people.

The importance of the approach based on learning outcomes goes beyond ensuring that labour market demands appear in vocational education and its specific curricula. According to many this approach may be the key of relating the National Qualification Frameworks of the individual EU member states on all levels of education, which can lead to their harmonisation with the European Qualification Framework. The LeO approach includes knowledge acquired also in non-formal and informal education, thus strengthens the accountability of previously acquired competences. The learning Outcomes approach is described more in details in the publication of CEDEFOP: The shift to learning outcomes Policies and practices in Europe (CEDEFOP Reference Series No. 72, 2009. Luxembourg), that can be read on the Internet as well.

Diagram 2: The LeO approach and the EQF

For our research of competences we needed to choose a proper conceptual framework, that means that we had to agree at the beginning of the research on what kind of competence-definitions we would work with. Below we will describe the main aspects of creating our competence model. Creating a clear definition of competences is a rather difficult task, as some of these concepts may have a very different meaning according the actual context.

With the professionals participating in our partnership programme we agreed on using the definition of competences of the European Union Committee, as described, among others, in the Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council on key competences for lifelong learning (2006/962/EC)

In the European practice competences are interpreted in a rather large sense of the word. The interpretation isn’t simply restricted to a “reaction” to labour market demands, therefore it is “taken out” of the framework of labour market factors and competition, and is used in a much wider sense. According to this interpretation competences enable individuals to fulfil their own expectations just like to meet the requirements of organisations and the community, and to accomplish certain tasks. The European competence-theories based on demand consider competences a combination of knowledge, skills and attitudes. This is the so called Knowledge-Skills-Attitude (KSA) typology.

The DeSeCo (Definition and Selection of Competencies) project launched by the OECD at the end of 1997 was also aimed at providing a comprehensive reference framework for the definition and selection of competences, which could later serve as the basis for international research on competences. According to the interpretation of the DeSeCo Programme: “a competency is more than just knowledge and skills, it involves the ability to meet complex demands, in a particular context”. This concept also involves the combination of knowledge, skills and attitudes, that is, the ability of mobilising knowledge, cognitive and practical skills, social and practical components and attitudes, feelings and values as well.

Diagram 3: Knowledge-Skills-Attitude (KSA) typology

The process of creating the competence-model

Creating such a model could be done in two ways: bottom up, or top-down. Our model belongs to the first, so-called bottom-up category: the professionals themselves define the competencies needed for their jobs. In our case the competence-profile doesn’t include specific competences needed for specific tasks, the professionals participating in the programme tried to define those competences which are necessary for all jobs in the field of inclusive education. This way the competence-profile can later be included in different types of training and education systems. That is, these “generic” (i.e.: important for all jobs in the field) competences can later be linked to certain training modules and be complemented with more specific competences according to the content of the training. During our research we tried to discover the so-called tacit knowledge of the professionals as well.

The participants of the research formed two basic groups. There was a coordinating team of three persons, and another team of twenty five-thirty persons, the professionals taking part in the workshops. It was the task of the coordinating team to elaborate the methodology of creating the competence-model, to organise and lead the workshops, to process and document the outcomes and to ensure continuous communication with all participating members. During the programme altogether around sixty professionals have been included in the research.Diagram 4 shows the twelve-phase process of the creation of the competence-model.

Diagram 4: the twelve-phase competence-model

In the first phase of the work the coordinating team reviewed the relevant literature and prepared suggestions for the competence-definitions to be used during the research. (We gave a brief overview of this work in the “theoretical background” section.)

During the first workshop (March 2012, Florence) the coordinating team presented its suggestions to the participating professionals. After this the professionals were divided into three mixed nationality groups, with a member of the coordinating team in each group to discuss the proposed concepts. The participating experts (around thirty persons) accepted the suggestions of the coordinating team. The agreed reference framework was sent to all participants after the meeting.

After the meeting in Florence the coordinating team had to create the competence-model, that is, the methodology and process of collecting and selecting the competences to be included in the planned professional competence profile. For this work a special method was needed to define competences more specifically. It was a real challenge to identify competences which are valid for the entire field of inclusive education (generic competences), that is, which are neither too specific, nor too general. In order to be able to accomplish this task, the coordinating teamrelied on their previous experiences in modelling. They defined eight fields of competence, which later, during the workshops, helped to define the related competences more specifically. These competence fields are in fact different “roles” professionals of a given job have to play. The diagram no 5 lists these fields, while chart 2 describes them more in detail.

Diagram 5: the fields of competence defined by the coordinating team

Chart 2: Elaboration of the fields of competence

1.	Information provider: to be able to communicate information to the target groups and to people or organisations related to them (individuals living with disabilities, their family members, media, etc.) (E.g. Proper use of formal/ informal language according to the context)
2.	Personal need analyser: ability to assess special/individual needs of people living with disabilities(E.g. To be able to assess the individual needs of clients through verbal and non-verbal communication (.by playing or learning situations.)
3.	Networker: to be able to work well within different (professional, institutional, etc.) networks (E.g.To be able to mediate conflicts with clients, network, partners.)
4.	Learning facilitator: to be able to facilitate the learning process of the disabled, to involve them into learning situations while taking into account their special needs. (E.g.To be able to create a learning environment which takes account of the individual  learning preferences of the clients)
5.	Coach, motivator: the ability of motivating, mentoring target group members and actively involving them. (E.g.To focus on the strengths of the clients)
6.	Therapist, rehabilitation therapist: although this is a specific qualification in itself, in fact all professionals working with the disabled must have a sound basic knowledge in this field. (E.g.To be able to plan the therapeutic process.)
7.	"Pioneer" of social inclusion: participation in diffusing the inclusive approach, in the management of pilot projects, in creating environments meeting the needs of the disabled.(E.g.To be able to represent the aim of inclusion in different platforms (parents, institution, decision-makers)
8.	Learner: a need for continuous learning (LLL approach). (E.g. Purposeful learning within the profession.)

During the second workshop (June 2012, Barót) the coordinating team presented the competence fields to the participants. They explained the importance of these fields, the reason behind the selection and also illustrated the particular fields with a few examples. This was followed by a discussion where participants could enlarge or narrow the selection. Eight tables were prepared for the eight particular fields, where participants could individually write down a key word or sentence that came into their minds in relation to the actual field. The reason of this task was to give a chance to the participants to think over each field, to formulate their questions, and also to prepare the following work in pairs or small groups.

During the third workshop professionals were divided into eight small groups. Each group had one field of competence, in relation to which they had to find specific competences they considered important. They had to write these competences on individual pieces of paper. In this work the key words and key sentences previously added to the fields gave some help, and members of the coordinating team also facilitated the work of the small groups. At the end of the workshop a list of around 100-120 competences was assembled.

The fourth workshop took place a day later, with all of the participants working together. Their task was to do a first selection of the competences gathered the previous day. The competences were divided into two categories: general and generic competences. During the process the eight groups set up the previous day presented to the others the competences they had linked to their field, then the entire group decided into which category the actual competence should go. Every participant could ask questions to the groups “presenting” the individual competences. At the end of the workshop all of the competences from the previous day were ranged into one of the two categories, and those belonging to the “general” category (e.g. good communicative skills) were eliminated from the list. What remained was a list of about seventy competences labelled “generic” by the participants.

Between the fourth and fifth workshop the coordinating team recorded the selected competences according to the fields they belonged into an electronic chart. The chart was shared with the participants (using online documents, community websites and other web2 techniques), who could edit it before the next workshop in Munich, by modifying the listed competences or adding new ones (second selection). Members of the partner organisation were very active in this online work, and the list underwent some serious changes. New competences were added, some were refined, some were suggested to be eliminated from the list.

During the same period of time the coordinating team elaborated an online questionnaire (annexed to this study) with the aim of further selecting (third selection) and arranging the competences. The other objective of the questionnaire was to gather more information about the participant professionals, for instance about their original qualifications and actual jobs.

During the fifth workshop (November 2012, Munich) a general overview of the project was presented to the participants including the actual stand of the research and the next steps to be taken towards the creation of the competence-profile. The objective and structure of the online questionnaire was also discussed, and later modified according to the suggestions made by the participants. A final joint editing of the list of competences was also carried out during this workshop (fourth selection). Participants were divided into national groups (to facilitate communication).  Each group discussed one or two of the eight fields and the related competences. As a result several competences were modified or eliminated from the list, which, at the end comprised 56 competences.

In the period following the Munich meeting the coordinating team edited and sent out the final online questionnaire. The questionnaire contained several questions related to each of the 56 selected competences, and some general questions.In the questions related to the competences respondents had to evaluate the particular competencies from four different aspects.

All together 60 questionnaires were duly filled and returned to the coordinating team.

In the introductory questions participants had to give general information about themselves. Besides naming the country of their workplace they had to describe their actual jobs and their original qualifications/professions. Based on the answers the respondents could be divided into seven categories according to their actual jobs.

Diagram 6:Percentage distribution of professions of the respondents.

Interpretation of the four question-groups related to the individual competences, presentation of the results:

In the first questions respondents had to rate on a 1-4 scale to what degree they themselves possess the given competence. One of the reasons behind this question was to help respondents identifying with the given competence by rating themselves at the first place. From the result it can also be seen on what level respondents possess the actual competence. We had naturally assumed that once a competence went through three selections and thus was judged very important by the participants of the research, they would also possess the given competency.  Through this group of questions we also gathered further information concerning the specificities of certain professions – which are the professions characterised by the possession of a given competence. On the basis of the results of the questionnaires only eight of the 56 competencies are those, which are not (or not fully) possessed by more than 30% of the respondents.

In the second group of questions respondents had to rate the importance of the given competence from the point of view of their actual scope of activities. From this question the general importance of the selected competencies can be well assessed, since all of the respondents work in the field our research is focused on: the field of working with the disabled. On the basis of the result the selected competences can be ranked according to their importance, and those considered crucial in all of the concerned professions can be defined. This way the online questionnaire can also be considered as the fourth selection of the chosen competences. In diagram 7 it can clearly be seen that the competences mentioned in the questionnaire are all very important in respect of our competence profile, there was only one considered unimportant by more than half of the respondents. (“Knowledge of relevant EU projects, processes, funding opportunities”) During the last meeting of the partnership programme held in Bulgaria in April 2013 participants voted about this competence. The unanimous decision of the thirty participating professionals was to keep it in the profile.

Diagram 7: the importance given to competences in the actual job of the respondents

In the third group of questions respondents had to decide whether a given competence is important in respect of their original profession/qualification. From the results it can be observed, which are the competencies considered very important for a job, but the respondents couldn’t acquire them (well) during their education. These competences are different according to the different professions in the field. Among others this phenomenon can be observed by chart 3. (The limitations of the present study don’t allow us to examine all of the 56 competences in relation to the 7 professions of the respondents).

Finally in the fourth question respondents had to mark in case of every competence whether they had acquired the given competence mainly in formal or non-formal education. This question has a vital importance for our research. We had presumed that the majority of the competences consisting the competence-profile would be those to be acquired mainly outside formal education. This hypothesis as fully justified by the results of the questionnaire. The below diagram illustrates the ratio of competences acquired within formal and non-formal education.

Diagram 8: Percentage distribution of competences acquired within formal and non-formal education

The result of the fourth questionalso reveals those professions where the acquisition of certain competences is part of the formal curriculum. For instance medical knowledge can be acquired in formal education of conductors, while it is not part of the curriculum of social workers. The chart 3presents the example of a competence considered equally important for two professions, while acquired in a different way.

Chart 3 : Comparison of two professions through one competence

	“The ability to plan the therapeutic process”
%	Important in his/her actual work	Important for his/her profession	Acquired in formal education	Acquired in non-formal education
Conductor	100%	100%	100%	-
Social worker	64%	27%	27%	73%

Results of the research, the competence profile

The chart no 4 displays the 56 competencies creating our competence profile.

It was the unanimous conviction of all participants of the partnership programme that successful inclusion in any organisation of the field can only be realised if professionals working on all levels and positions of the organisation possess the following competences. This is a base that may well be completed by specific competences related to specific tasks, but without these (previously called generic) competences inclusive education cannot be carried out successfully.

They are arranged into two groups: those acquired in formal education and those acquired in non-formal learning.

		Competences acquired in non-formal learning – skills, knowledge, attitude
C2.	S	To be able to assess the individual needs of clients through verbal and non-verbal communication (i.e.by playing or learning situations.)
C3.	A	Empathy with the problem of clients and their families
C7.	S	Proper use of formal/ informal language according to the context
C9.	A	Being professionally up to date (following the “news” of the profession)
C10.	K	Knowledge of governmental and non-governmental institutions of the field
C11.	K	Knowledge of relevant EU projects, processes, funding opportunities
C12.	K	Knowledge of the area and its opportunities where the clients operate
C13.	A	To be able to give positive, accurate feedback to clients and to offer possible solutions
C14.	S	To avoid too high expectations, to set realistic aims.
C17.	S	Good cooperation with the parents of clients
C18.	S	Ability to maintain a team
C21.	S	Ability to constantly monitor the learning situations and reflect on its outcomes
C22.	A	To focus on what clients can do, not on what they cannot do.
C23.	A	To be open minded – to listen, to observe
C24.	S	To be able to create a learning environment which takes account of the individual  learning preferences of the clients
C25.	S	The ability to organise a great variety of(formal and non-formal) learning activities
C26.	S	To be able to use the creativity of the clients, using arts in the learning situations
C27.	S	Ability to work well with other people, e.g. teachers, therapists, etc.
C28.	S	To be able to facilitate the learning situation based on the client’s personal dynamic
C29.	S	To offer the clients a variety of tools and methods for individual learning
C30.	S	To be able to work in team.
C31.	?	To learn with and from others.
C32.	A	To be persistent in learning
C33.	S	Purposeful learning within the profession
C34.	A	Interest in new learning methods
C35.	S	To identify your realistic learning needs according to the goals you have set up
C36.	S	Good communication with network-members and clients
C37.	S	Ability to mediate conflicts (with clients, network, partners)
C38.	S	Good collaboration with clients, parents, institutions, stakeholders, etc.
C39.	S	Problem-solving thinking focused on the objectives of the clients
C40.	S	Ability to stimulate active participation of the clients
C41.	S	Ability to encourage and involve other team-members
C42.	S	To be able to represent the aim of inclusion in different platforms (parents, institution, decision-makers)
C43.	S	Capacity to create, run and monitor programmes andactivities aimed at enhancing social inclusion
C45.	S	To be suggestive when facing the bureaucratic system.
C46.	K	Knowledge of relevant laws, funding opportunities and competent bodies/organizations.
C47.	S	Good organizational and diplomatic skills
C48.	K	Knowledge (and good use) of the tools of assessing good results in inclusion
C49.	A	Interest in and knowledge of the family and all the people who work with your clients
C50.	S	The ability to recognise the expectations of the clients
C51.	A	Being open tochange
C52.	A	To focus on the strengths of the clients.
C53.	S	To stimulate (mobilise)individual knowledge of the clients (group or individual).
C54.	S	To facilitate the connection between knowledge and action – to enable clients to use acquired competences in practice
C55.	S	To be able to maintain a good personal relation to the clients while respecting the objectives and ethical requirements of a therapeutic relationship
C56.	S	To improve commitmentand determination of the clients based on their individual motivation and particular learning preferences

		Competences acquired in formal education
C1.	S	Ability to support clients to identify their own needs
C4.	K	Thorough theoretical knowledge of special needs of the target groups
C5.	S	The ability to assess and analyse the needs of the clients
C6.	S	Ability to choose a methodology that fits the objectives and the needs of the clients
C8.	S	The ability to analyse the need of the clients
C15.	S	To be able to assess the existing competences of the clients
C16.	S	To be able to plan the therapeutic process
C19.	K	To have medical background knowledge
C20.	S	Ability to analyse the knowledge and skills of the clients – ability to build on them
C44.	K	Knowledge of relevant methods (pedagogical, methodological knowledge)

The majority of the competences figuring in the chart may be acquired primarily in practice (field work?), that is, in non-formal learning. This also underlines the importance of practice-oriented vocational training. 

However we can find several competencies among those acquired via non-formal learning, which could easily be part of formal education curriculum, although our respondent professionals declared having acquired them in informal learning environment (Such competencies are for instance “Knowledge of governmental and non-governmental institutions of the field” ( C10), “Knowledge of relevant EU projects, processes, funding opportunities” (C11) or “Knowledge of  the relevant laws, funding opportunities and competent bodies/organizations” (C46).

Conclusion

Professionals working in the field of social inclusion of the disabled have very different backgrounds, we can find among them educators, social workers, conductors, special need teachers, etc. Their training and qualifications also show a great variety on national and European level. For instance educators usually have a university degree in Italy or in Hungary, while in Germany this qualification is acquired in vocational training. This makes the validation of qualifications and international mobility very difficult.

On the basis of the experience gathered by the participants of our partnership programme we think that our competence profile is an inventory of basic competences that all professionals working in this field have to possess, regardless of their different qualifications. We consider an important future task to build these competences into the learning outcomes of actual curricula on all levels of training and education related to this field.

We have all agreed on the fact that the key to successful inclusion lies in the actual professionals possessing the above competences. As, according to our research, 82% of these competences were acquired by the participants in non-formal learning, it would be vital to create the guidelines and appropriate methods of recognising, validating and certifying the possession of these competences on a European level.

Our original aim was to write a comprehensive study with comparative analysis of relevant professions and trainings thatcould serve as the basis for developing training modules based on ECVET planned within the frame of the LdV DOI programme. However at present we think that the first and most urgent task is the creation of a system of recognition, validation and certification for these competences.