Stigma to Status: Paradigm Shifts toward VET

By Katie Caves

When countries without strong VET systems start working toward better VET, there are always a few common threads to their initial hurdles. Education systems that only deal with general education usually have to face a few changes in expectations. These are the most common examples.

1.    Programs vs. Systems

In almost every case we’ve found, there is at least one program that already exists to help young people access employable skills. These are usually based on a personal relationship between one great teacher and a willing company, and there are usually stories about how positive the experience is for students who can access the program. Programs like this are obviously good, but they are also limited. To make a difference for young people and companies that need skilled workers, VET needs to be part of a system that offers permeability, options, and clear transferable certifications. A localized program can’t give its graduates something that will help them get a job in another area, but a state- or nation-wide program that is part of a system can.

2.    Employers as Skill Consumers vs. Employers as Skill Producers

Most employers are used to consuming skills. They determine what they need for a given position, then go looking on the labor market to find the right person. When they can’t find the specific skills or level of skill they need, employers might take their complaint to the education system and ask it to provide them with the skills they need. Some employers even donate money or resources to educational institutions for this purpose. In contrast, employers in a VET system work with educators to build curricula that meet their needs, then hire and train apprentices or more advanced trainees to produce those skills. Instead of donating money and hoping the education system will produce the skills they need, VET employers have both power and obligations to produce those skills.

3.    Training as Philanthropy vs. the Business Case for Training

When a system is focused on general education, on-the-job training programs and workplace experiences are usually limited, either to very short time periods or to very specific groups of students—possibly both. If workplace experiences are very brief, employers can’t expect trainees to reach any meaningful level of skill so they effectively donate the time of their workers an equipment used for training. If only a certain group of students is put into training-oriented programs, employers might not be able to select the trainees that best fit their needs so productivity is again very low. Employers train as a philanthropic endeavor, and will stop training when it costs too much.

In contrast, employers in VET systems actually make money by training. As apprentices learn over time, they become increasingly productive and eventually approach skilled-worker productivity. Apprenticeships are also designed to last a specific period of time—usually three or four years—that is long enough for firms to recoup their training and wage costs with the productive contributions of apprentices. VET employers participate because it is good for the bottom line, and if it isn’t they do not participate.

4.    Students going to Work vs. Employees going to School

A great quote from CEMETS faculty member Prof. Dr. Stefan Wolter—upon whose research a lot of this post is based—is that “apprentices are not poorly paid workers. They are extremely well paid students.” Apprentice wages are lower than fully-skilled workers’ wages to “pay” for the education and training apprentices get. They finish the program with a portable credential that offers them entry into both the workforce and further education and training. At the upper-secondary level, apprentices start making their own money at 15 or 16 years old, which goes very far when you still live at home and helps begin to address equity concerns that students can’t access certain extracurricular programs because they are expected to help support their families.

5.    Apprenticeship as an Artifact vs. Apprenticeship as Innovation

The last big shift that we hear very often is that some country can’t develop an apprenticeship system because they don’t have the history of apprenticeships that Switzerland and other countries have. The Swiss system is not based on a history that goes all the way back to Medieval guilds—a topic we covered in Post 10. In fact, it and other successful VET systems today are the result of constant innovation and updating, especially in the last 50 years. Successful VET grows out of the demands of employers, young people, and educators to develop programs that work for all young people and help develop many different types and levels of skill. The best systems are constantly updating; if they were to stay as they are now, they would quickly lose relevance and enrollments.