What is a program?

By Katie Caves

On this blog, we have been modeling education and training systems in terms of a three-by-three grid with three levels on the vertical axis and three pathways on the horizontal axis. The pathways are vocational, applied, and academic education and training. In each box—one pathway on one level—is at least one program. 

What is a program?

Here is a simple definition that fits our purposes: A program is a structure for delivering education and/or training at a specific level in a specific pathway. Programs can contain multiple curricula for different occupations or specializations, and are defined by certain program requirements for characteristics like duration, core learning, learning places, teaching and learning models, graduation requirements, and entrance requirements. Everyone who goes through a given program will get the same degree, possibly with various specializations. Programs should be consistent across the education system so students can move geographically and take their credentials with them.

A clear international example of a program is the Bachelor’s degree. In our model, this would be the dominant program in most systems at the tertiary level in the academic pathway. Students can pursue different majors at different universities, but all of them finish with a BA or BS. In American-style systems, the program takes about four years, and in European-style systems since the Bologna Reform, the program takes about three years. Because the Bachelor’s degree is recognized nearly worldwide, they can be extremely portable.

Examples of Upper-Secondary VET Programs

Unlike the Bachelor’s degree with its universality, VET programs at the upper-secondary level are very diverse internationally. In our KOF EELI study, we looked at programs in 18 top-performing countries and found enormous differences in programs’ scope, importance, and models. The systems we studied offer from one to six formal programs—plus innumerable non-formal programs in some cases—that serve 7-80% of young people and comprise 7 to 657 occupations.

For example, only 7% of upper-secondary students in Hong Kong choose VET. The programs available are the Diploma in Vocational Education (DVE), chosen by 71.4% of VET students, or one of a number of other singular programs, chosen by 28.6% of VET students. Within those programs, students can choose from 46 occupational curricula.

In contrast, 80% of Austrian young people choose VET, where they have access to three programs. Dual Apprenticeship serves 50.4% of VET students, VET Colleges serve 32.4%, and VET Schools 17.2%. There are 206 occupations. Clearly, there is plenty of space for diversity both within and between countries in terms of what programs they offer.

Formalizing Informal Programs

Informal programs are those that do not meet the above criteria and/or are not recognized by educational authorities. They do not have their own certifications, or they operate only in single schools, individual firms, or local areas. Many of the efforts to develop better VET options for young people start out this way, with a motivated teacher reaching out to a willing firm and setting something up that helps students. These informal programs can grow relatively large, but they present a challenge to potential reformers. How do you build a system when you have too many moving pieces?

In places where there are many grassroots efforts to develop VET and the state or national government comes into the picture late, one challenge is aligning many informal programs into a clear landscape of programs. Faced with multiple models all trying to incorporate workplace learning and employer-driven competency standards, governments can either formalize multiple programs individually or unite them under one umbrella.

Uniting the models is more difficult, because it requires probably-painful negotiations to align program duration, requirements, and key characteristics. However, combining similar non-formal programs is good for students, because it gives them a more recognizable degree they can use to pursue further education, training, and employment.

Of course, some models cannot be combined. If one approach to VET is focused on preparation in secondary school and training in post-secondary programs (Singapore), it cannot be combined with a model that puts young people in the workplace in secondary school (dual systems). When possible, however, aligning multiple models into a single program and building that program into a system enables permeability, improves students’ chances, and helps companies participate in VET.