Abstract
This book explores similarities and differences in Vocational Education and Training (VET) systems across Europe. The authors compare and contrast variations in the adoption of VET in England, France, Germany and the Netherlands using the European Qualifications Framework (EQF), a system that allows comparisons of qualifications at the European level. Explanations are further drawn from case study analyses of occupational qualifications in a range of sectors, including brick-laying, lorry driving, nursing and engineering, to ascertain the underlying factors that elicit ‘convergence/divergence’ (p. 2) of VET. The research examines different terminologies relating to knowledge, vocational education, skills and qualifications, and aims to develop transnational categories to facilitate analysis of different European VET systems. The authors explain the relevance of these terminologies at national, firm and workplace levels.
Chapter 1 presents the key themes discussed throughout the book. These themes highlight wide-ranging and complex factors that differentiate the social (e.g. labour market flexibility), political (e.g. government educational policy) and economic (e.g. EU economic development policy) institutionalization of skills, competencies and qualifications within different countries, and the involvement of institutional stakeholders (e.g. governments, trade unions, employers) in the organization of skills and competencies. Chapter 1 also outlines the content of following chapters, explaining that they explore the institutionalization of VET systems within different countries using seven conceptual dimensions. These dimensions are: the governance of regulatory VET frameworks; education systems that establish the structure and content of provision; qualifications; knowledge; competency underpinning VET; and the currency of qualifications within labour markets.
In Chapter 2 the authors highlight the advantages of Europe’s involvement in VET policy but also emphasize controversies surrounding the EQF. Since inception (2008), the EQF promotes transparency in qualifications using common terminology across EU member states and international organizations (OECD). It represents a ‘metaframework’ (p. 26) eliciting horizontal comparability across countries and vertical intra-national VET and qualifications pathways, and is instrumental in enabling comparisons in the labour market mobility of qualifications. The authors, however, highlight controversies associated with the implementation and use of the EQF as a cross-national evaluation system, limiting its practical use. Differences in the conceptualization of the EQF at transnational, cross-sector and occupational levels introduce variations in adoption according to language, terminology, learning outcomes and their evaluation.
Chapters 3−5 highlight similarities and differences in how VET is organized based on how skills, knowledge, qualifications and competences are conceptualized within national educational policy, the workplace and the collective bargaining contexts of France, Germany and the Netherlands. Chapter 3 notes that conflicts between school-based and state-regulated VET systems in France are underpinned by concerns for competency and have led to tensions over the importance of academic qualifications and vocational education. The French VET also introduces ambiguities in its alignment with the EQF meta-framework owing to the dual currency of their qualifications/labour market. Alternatively, in the German social partnership model (Dual System), a focus of Chapter 4, planned education and VET and an organizing principle (Beruf – system linking individual occupational identity and status with key employment routes, p. 51) facilitate diverse benefits. These include reduced labour market competition, individual social mobility and the collective institutional integration and regulation of VET for its alignment with the EQF. However, the authors suggest that industry transformation resulting in task/process-orientated career pathways, short-term employability and the weakening powers of collectivism were eroding the traditional Beruf and testing the suitability of the VET route for industry, school and higher education.
Alternatively, the Dutch VET system (Chapter 5), also built on a social partnership model, promotes a multi-dimensional performance-based VET qualifications framework concentrating on wide-ranging human abilities. However, the Dutch system is criticized for its lack of transparent performance indicators, standardization and emphasis on informal assessment that the EFQ does not fully support. Chapter 6 examines the state-driven English VET context that is underpinned by a lack of employer engagement in facilitating skills demand, yet is adopted in achieving high-level skills and qualifications. Chapters 7 and 8 explain how skills, knowledge and competencies underpinning the vocational, educational and academic elements of VET compare to and are represented by occupations from traditional, non-manual, low/highly regulated working environments of diverse sectors across Europe. The authors recommend voluntary arrangements (Zones of Mutual Trust) between member states to facilitate consensus-driven cross-national VET systems.
The authors conclude by arguing that critical differences in national and industry-level, conceptualization, analysis and institutionalization of VET systems across Europe prevent their wider cross-national EU harmonization. In light of its insights, the book attracts a diverse readership based on its detailed and insightful discussions that critically evaluate the barriers underpinning cross-national qualifications within the context of EU policy and the EQF.