In the Netherlands, experiments have been carried out for some years now using APL as a tool for accrediting competencies irrespective of where they were acquired. There is a reasonable degree of enthusiasm among policymakers for APL (Dungen et al, 2003). The level of enthusiasm in day-to-day practice is not so high, however.

Function of APL is predominant

In the practical examples that can be found, the certification or summative function of APL is predominant. Be that as it may, both providers and participants are attaching more and more importance to the development-based (formative) function of APL: the function it can fulfil in career development in the context of lifelong learning. Accordingly, there are currently two main streams in APL. In the first, APL is an alternative diploma route and in the second, it functions as a system of career development (Duvekot, 2004). This dual function can also be found in European principles drawn up for the ‘validation of nonformal and informal learning’ (EU, 2004).

APL goals can be formative or summative

APL goals can be formative or summative. It is up to the individual to decide. In both cases, the individual’s total package of skills, competencies and of qualifications comes under review. The still prominent emphasis on the certifying and qualifying character of APL has everything to do with the very first key stakeholders, namely those in senior secondary vocational education (mbo) and knowledge centres, and the use of the national qualification structure for senior secondary vocational education as an accreditation standard. Gradually, new parties have emerged, such as the Centre for Work and Income (CWI), return-to-work companies, social partners, trade organisations, businesses (in particular officials in human resource development and education and development) and voluntary organisations. These organisations are looking for ways to shape APL to fit their own context.

Certification is not always the final goal, sometimes it is enough to get a good idea of an individual’s potential. Nevertheless, the communicative value and the transparency of results is also a concern. The portfolio plus a jointly employed competence terminology can provide such transparency. Portfolios already act as a collective base for the formative and summative function of APL. Despite the various manifestations of APL, almost all such procedures start by accrediting and evaluating competencies being documented in portfolios. The recognition is very individualbased, evaluation (and, as the case may be, accreditation) can take place in relation to an external standard (a national or sector-specific qualification structure or a professional competence profile) or the object may be to develop a personal competence profile as a standard. (See also Hövels et al, 2002).

Today’s western society

Whatever the APL function or standard that is eventually selected, we recommend developing tools that can be used in various contexts, situations and stages of life, and, where possible, are valid outside the Netherlands. In today’s western society where career shifts and labour mobility are the rule rather than the exception, developing a system that can be put to broad use is to be preferred. A system that is not bound to a specific profession or institution requires a quality assurance base that transcends individual education or business-related quality frameworks, for instance. A system of personal accreditation comes closest to that. In such systems, it is irrelevant where the accredited individuals work, be that in vocational education, adult education, in business or voluntary work, or whether these people are assessors, portfolio managers, process or career guides. What does matter is that they are capable of helping people enhance their competencies and further their career development.

The CH-Q System has integrated a system quality assurance of APL and career development. It sits well with the challenges advocated by the Social and Economic Council (SER) and the Cabinet, such as engaging in lifelong learning, a core position for the individual, and career development.

The system enhances transparency between education and the labour market and is not institution-specific. This does away with various limitations of domain-specific portfolio and APL systems, as we know them in the Netherlands. The policy of ‘let a thousand flowers bloom’ in the Netherlands was crucial for creating grassroots support, but it led to an array of tools and portfolios for all manner of ends, contexts and target populations. The result of this mushrooming of portfolios is that the value of a portfolio is not recognised outside the context in which it was developed. Neither is there an unequivocal conceptual framework, making communication about results awkward. Other disadvantages include non-committal development of expertise, no quality assurance system, assessments of dubious independence, and a one-sided, internal use of the outcome of procedures as tools for deciding whether or not to grant exemptions when administering training courses (Knowledge centre APL, 2004).

Transparency, accessibility and quality are needed

If APL is to contribute positively to individual career development, then improvements in transparency, accessibility and quality are needed. Even so, some initiatives have been taken in the field of APL quality assurance, for instance the creation of an APL code by the APL Knowledge Centre, competence profiles for guides and assessors and a system of furthering expertise. These have not been formalised, however, and there is no support for a more generic application of these quality impulses, which would serve to align practice.

The CH-Q System can be used in the fields of education (initial and post-initial, funded and nonfunded), of the working world, of the return to work or preparation for work. It is set up as a independent concept and features a comprehensive system of quality assurance, thus making it a system that meets requirements as regards independent character of career development and APL, much advocated in the Netherlands. The system endorses current ideas and is based on a broad APL approach, i.e. aiming not only at certification but especially also at career development and employing various standards. Moreover, it leads to transparency and quality of provision as well as autonomous management, supervision and control.