The integrity and quality of information in registries are fundamental to all stages of policy development – from conception and design to implementation and evaluation – especially in fields like adult learning, where the needs and conditions can be diverse and dynamic (Roumell & Roessger, 2019). Such data can reveal trends, needs, and gaps in the current education system, enabling more targeted and effective policy interventions. Data from registries can offer insights into adult learners' demographics, learning preferences, and career trajectories. Big Data and advanced analytics are vital in creating responsive and adaptive workforce development systems (Williamson, 2017). There are expectations that education policymakers will need to be plied with quality data in the form of predictive analytical patterns (modelling, machine learning, and data mining of historical data) and knowledge about global educational predictions of future outcomes and trends (Soskil, 2018).

Reliable registries, which include information about the accreditation status of training providers and programs, are also important from learners' and employers' perspectives as they might reduce the asymmetry of information and assure the quality and the potential for a return on their investment in education and training. They might also enhance the efficiency of the search for the appropriate training offer and, therefore, contribute to better investments in human capital. The Council Recommendation on individual learning accounts of 2022 recommends developing public registers of training offers. The Council Recommendation states: “There is also a need for up-to-date public registries of recognised training through dedicated single national digital portals accessible to all, including people with disabilities, and, preferably, interconnected with the Europass platform”. Establishments of public registers in many European countries is also linked with the development of national qualifications frameworks for lifelong learning (Markowitsch & Dębowski 2022)

In the article, we aim to analyse solutions adopted in the four Visegrad countries, namely the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia, regarding developments of registries and data collection in the education sectors with particular attention to the vocationally oriented adult education sector. Following Desjardins' adult training systems typology (2017), we aim to identify how data in adult learning subsystems (sectors) is collected and used by policymakers and stakeholders. We distinguish between data (registries) regarding learners and data (registries) regarding the training offer. The analysis of data collection systems will be conducted against the background of policy frameworks that underpin adult learning in the Visegrad countries, noting the interplay between European Union recommendations and national priorities, including the structure of governance of the adult learning and financing.

The findings aim to contribute to the broader discourse on adult education systems and inform future policy development within and beyond the Visegrad region. The article draws on evidence from the international project: Digital Individual Learning Accounts In The Visegrad Countries (D-ILA in V4) financed within the Erasmus+ framework. The project used mixed research methods, including literature and policy documents analysis of public and private registries of data collection as well as in-person interviews (44 interviews in total) with the key stakeholders: training providers, employers, policymakers, trade union representatives, policy researchers.

The article draws on evidence from the international project: Digital Individual Learning Accounts In The Visegrad Countries (D-ILA in V4) financed within the Erasmus+ framework and has been conducted by four institutions from Visegrad countries. Authors of the article have been involved in the D-ILA in V4 project. The article draws on mixed research methods, including literature and policy documents analysis, analysis of public and private registries of data collection, as well as in-person interviews (44 interviews in total) with the key stakeholders: training providers, employers, policymakers, trade union representatives, and policy researchers. The article compares and synthesises solutions and practices from the four Visegrad countries.

The Visegrad countries decentralised their education systems at the beginning of the transformation in the 1990s, and adult learning sector was viewed as market oriented and was essentially left to private providers and voluntarist initiatives of NGOs. In the absence of governmental regulation and support, the institutionalization of adult education policy was slow. However, in Hungary since 2010 there has been a strong move to centralisation within education in general and within VET in particular, and a resurgence in top down, system-wide policy initiatives. In the Visegrad countries, similarly as in other EU countries, adult education and training takes place mostly in the non-formal education setting, and this sector has been growing over the years while the share of adults participating in formal education is decreasing. At the same time this sector is largely unregulated and not monitored, with Hungary to be an exception. The functioning of the adult education system in Hungary is regulated in detail by laws and in recent years, there has been an expansion and tightening of data collection related to: a) persons participating in adult education and training, b) training courses; c) data related to the organisation of examinations and organisations providing. In other Visegrad countries there is no one training database for adults, and data regarding persons participating in non-formal education is generally not collected. However, all of the Visegrad countries introduce new policy initiatives and tools, including registers, in order to better monitor and coordinate adult education sector. In Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia and Poland some forms of accreditation are being introduced for providers willing to be included in public registries and this often is linked with public funding. However, the scope and thoroughness of accreditation varies in all of the countries. Public registries are functioning along with numerous private initiatives.

Desjardins, R. (2017). Political economy of adult learning systems: Comparative study of strategies, policies and constraints. Bloomsbury publishing. Markowitsch, J., Dębowski, H. (2022). Education systems and qualifications frameworks, [in:] Tutlys, V., Markowitsch, J., Pavlin, S., Winterton, J. (eds.). Skill Formation in Central and Eastern Europe, Berlin, Germany: Peter Lang Verla. DOI: 10.3726/b19799 Roumell, E. A., & Roessger, K. (2019). Humanistic, Innovative Solutionism: What Role do Data Analytics Play in Developing a More Responsive and More Intelligent Adult and Workforce Education Policy?. In The Educational Intelligent Economy: BIG DATA, Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning and the Internet of Things in Education (Vol. 38, pp. 127-142). Emerald Publishing Limited. Soskil, M. (2018). Education in a time of unprecedented change. In Teaching in the Fourth Industrial Revolution (pp. 8-24). Routledge. Williamson, B. (2017). Big Data in education: The digital future of learning, policy and practice. SAGE Publications.