VETTER E learning course (EN)

The labour market is facing an alarming lack of skills and presents major matching problems in terms of supply and demand for skilled workers. An important part of this supply of skills is the vocational education given at upper secondary level in upper secondary school or in adult education, as well as education within higher VET. In recent years, it has become clear that an apprenticeship system, where a large part of the learning takes place in the workplace, is needed to complement the usual vocational training. There is a need to simplify and make apprenticeship training in Sweden clearer. One system, both for adult and young students would be easier to communicate. In forming that system, it is important to learn from apprenticeship options that exist. Different industries and professions have different conditions, which an apprenticeship system should take into account. The industry or employer should, therefore, have a great deal of influence over the design of apprenticeship. The starting point must be the individual's need for an education that provides jobs and that employers have recruitment needs that must be met. It is also important to see apprenticeship as a qualified vocational education that leads to a vocational certificate and/or vocational degree, that could complement, or in some cases replace, other VET options. The basic principle should be that the apprentice has a job with the employer and that the job is adapted to the collective agreement structure that is appropriate. Apprenticeships should be age-neutral and work for narrow professional areas and work for a long time to come. The industries and the regular education system should have joint responsibility to ensure the quality of education at all levels.

Capturing labour market interest in apprenticeships is normally the first step in identifying apprenticeship occupations or specialties. However, the papers show that approaches followed vary from getting intelligence on skill needs in general, to capturing overall interest in VET, checking the interest in apprenticeship programmes, and collecting employer requests for a specific apprenticeship occupation or programme.

The participation of labour market actors in the identification of apprenticeship occupations or specialties depends on whether or not the processes are designed specifically for apprenticeships or are common to both school-based VET and apprenticeships. Apprenticeship-specific processes seem to allow greater room for labour market actors both to propose and approve apprenticeship occupations, specialties or programmes. Where processes refer to VET in general, labour market representative contributions may be less decisive, or it can be that a VET provider and an employer decide if training should be in the form of apprenticeships.

Several countries have no apprenticeship-specific occupations, so stakeholders make centralised decisions on what should be the VET occupations, specialties, or programmes, either when introducing new or reaffirming the provision of existing ones. Then, the decision to offer a VET programme in the mode of apprenticeship is usually taken at the level of individual VET providers and employers, depending on their preferences and availability. These processes often, but not always, limit the opportunities for labour market representatives to make significant contributions in proposing which occupations should be offered through apprenticeships. Even in these cases, their contribution can still be significant, as they can provide arguments on why a programme should be accepted for offer as apprenticeship instead of school-based VET.

The training provider should, in collaboration with the regional apprenticeship centre, be responsible for ensuring that there is a training contract between the apprentice, the training provider and the employer. The training providers are responsible for the preparation of the training contract. Professional committees should play a central role in the process, including when it comes to identifying competence needs, and defining education level and education plan.

Many employers have a long-term need to recruit skilled workers, but the pace of change in the labour market demands on new and flexible solutions. At the same time, young people's interest in vocational programmes in upper secondary school is not high enough to meet the needs, which means that the supply of skills must also take place to a greater extent from people who are no longer part of upper secondary school. Recent experience of vocational training has also shown that some students learn better if more of the learning takes place in a workplace.

The existence of minimum standards or curricula for the company-based part of the apprenticeship training may be considered as sine-qua-non for the comparability of learning outcomes or learning experiences at the workplace. In this case, company staff tasked to design in-company training for their apprentices (often together with VET provider staff) refer to such standards. It can be also expected that reference to such standards would be seen as a positive, supporting factor by company staff.

In Germany, training regulations contain common, binding minimum standards for the company-based part of apprenticeship training. They are issued by the Ministries of Education and of the respective industry, but in a participatory approach that involves social partners and is overseen by BiBB. This process supports both relevance and consensus, perceived value and trust. Company staff involved in designing in-company training can benefit from specific standards for the workplace and, one can assume, are more inclined to use them as they have the ‘stamp’ of the corresponding employer representative. BiBB issues an implementation guide that presents the competence profile, explains roles and helps companies design and plan their training.

In Italy, curricula used in apprenticeship are essentially an adaptation of those developed for the corresponding school-based VET programmes: no standards exist for in-company training. Some adaptation also happens at regional level with the support of regional social partners and authorities, but in-company trainers still need to engage closely with school teachers in developing individual training plans for each apprentice that properly combine the training to be carried out in both venues (workplace and VET provider). This is often considered by trainers as a demanding procedure.

In Italy, in the absence of standards for the in-company training, individual training plans, developed jointly by in-company trainers and VET staff, are central to apprenticeship training. However, the need to have a common language – align competences, activities and the overall curricula requirements – is a cumbersome process for in-company trainers, even more so in micro companies. The difficulty for companies to align activities with overall training requirements raises concerns about the extent to which individual training plans are properly completed by companies, especially micro ones, and used for delivering training. Although Italy has tools for monitoring and registering the achievement of learning outcomes (including individual dossier, logbook), especially in microcompanies there is a lack of capacity to handle these tools, as in no person in charge of managing them. This weakens the value of individual training plans that are jointly drafted by teachers and trainers.

In Cyprus, apprenticeship-specific curricula have not yet been developed. Those developed for school-based VET are used instead, without guidelines on how to be adapted for apprenticeship and without a specific reference to the workplace component. Apprenticeship school inspectors and trainers need to work closely together to determine the content of the in-company training in each case, but this cooperation does not always result in formalised training plans. There might be great differences in the learning experiences of apprentices within the same programme/qualification, which is only exacerbated by the difference in training capacity between micro-companies and larger ones.

In the recently (2016-17) established Greek EPAL apprenticeship scheme, apprenticeship curricula are being developed at national level by the Institute of Educational Policy (IEP). IEP was traditionally oriented to school-based curriculum development and has limited expertise when it comes to defining the workplace component. As a result, standards for the workplace component are either broadly stated or not yet developed. Employers, with the help of VET teachers, make their own adaptation to the broad apprenticeship curriculum, which might result in significant variation in what part of it is taught by each employer.

Traineeship and apprenticeship in Turkey are regulated by the Law on Vocational Training and the Regulation on Vocational and Technical Training. A trainee is the person who is employed by an employer in order to improve his/her knowledge level by observing practices and to learn activities carried out by a workplace. An apprentice is a person who improves on-the-job knowledge, skills and working habits required by a profession in accordance with principles set forth in apprenticeship agreement in the Law on Vocational Training.

The Regulation was put into force by being published in the Official Gazette of 19/11/2015 and No 29537 and has been developed to regulate rules and procedures relating to development, improvement, implementation and updating of the TQF in line with the activities carried out in order to develop policies, processes and protocols that will ensure functionality of the TQF by taking into account the principles relating to implementation and management of the TQF. In addition, each educational and vocational institution which requires traineeship develops guidelines in which requirements and method of traineeship are explained in details.

Accreditation and assessment

Papers showed that the role of labour market actors in monitoring how incompany training takes place is much more limited compared to their contribution in processes that happen at higher levels, such as the design of curricula or standards (or occupational profile).

Where single companies fail to cover the whole range of learning objectives foreseen in a qualification or curriculum, cooperative models emerge as a response. They include rotation of apprentices across more than one training company, or cooperation of a training company and a sectoral training centre for the workplace component, on top of the regular VET provider (school) that covers the school-based part of the curriculum. Such approaches are almost non-existent in most countries covered by the papers.

Safety nets can ensure sufficient provision of training, according to agreed/intended outcomes. Some initiatives have been promoted in recent years, often financed by EU funds, but, in most countries, they seem to retain a pilot, project-based nature, not formally foreseen or regulated. While companies are generally required to assign an in-company trainer, formal minimum requirements on who may fulfil this role are less common. For example, in Denmark, national trade committees are afraid that such a requirement might deter companies from participating, and that workers will not find motivation in a mandatory course to become a trainer. As a result, there is neither a requirement nor a reward/incentive for companies to train their staff accordingly.

In Germany, the formally appointed trainer must be professionally and personally competent to oversee the overall learning experience of an apprentice; aptitude tests are in place for this purpose. There is also a difference between the appointed trainer and other training specialists who are involved in specific parts of training. The complexity of the role of trainers is similarly acknowledged in Greece and Cyprus, where trainers have a bigger role in adapting the training content to the workplace reality. In Greece, Italy and Cyprus there are general requirements for a person to be nominated, but detailed requirements for their profile and background are essentially not in place.

In Greece, frequent teacher site visits seem to be a key remedial factor for the great variation in in-company learning experiences which are a result of the absence of in-company training specifications. Apprenticeship teachers are required to check apprentices’ progress periodically (on top of other tasks such as teaching and often finding companies). Similarly, in Cyprus sufficiency and quality of in-company training depends greatly on monitoring performed individually by schoolteachers who are appointed as apprenticeship inspectors.

In Greece, Italy and Cyprus there are general requirements for a person to be nominated, but detailed requirements for their profile and background are essentially not in place.

In Turkey, the Vocational and Technical Training Strategy Document and Action Plan[1] aims at promoting workplace-based learning including quality traineeship, apprenticeship and dual training models in order to facilitate transformation from educational career to working life for ensuring quality sustainability relating to traineeship and apprenticeship. In order for an enterprise to accept a student it should meet at least 80 % of the educational program, employ at least one master educator or trainer personnel in relevant field and the workplace standards should comply with the legal regulations. In various projects covered by lifelong learning activities executed and developed by the Ministry of National Education, the Council of Higher Education and VQI “ensuring that social partners involve in decision-making mechanisms, development of learning outcomes at various levels by the help of industry, determination of module-credit values of formal and non-formal educational programs, crediting of activities such as traineeship and on-the-job training, counselling and guidance, information systems, recognition, assessment and validity of former learnings, certification and quality assurance” are the prioritized items.

The total quality management approach has been adopted for provision of all services including apprenticeship and semiskilled trainings specified in the Regulation on Vocational and Technical Training. Establishment and functioning of the quality improvement team are regulated by provisions of “the Implementing Directive of the Ministry of National Education on Total Quality Management”.

This wide range of duties adds pressure, particularly to micro-companies, where owners, being the actual trainers, lack the time to engage properly in apprenticeship training and work in depth and in a structured way with the apprentice.

Collaboration with VET providers often seems to offer one solution. In Italy, where collaboration of teachers and trainers is intensive, especially in jointly designing the individual training plans, a recent project (Qualit) promotes a more structured approach based on a single, standardised, nationwide ‘dual trainer’ profile, for both in-company trainers and VET teachers involved in apprenticeship. It builds on joint requirements (skills, competences), a common training programme and a single qualification as ‘dual trainers’, which could then lead to an advanced ‘master-trainer’ qualification.

In larger companies, it is not only training procedures and infrastructure that are available more often, but also more people can be involved and share tasks that are central or peripheral to apprenticeship training. Those formally responsible for supervising training do not have to do the training at all, and can benefit from colleagues with particular expertise in specific tasks included in the agreed training content. Other company staff might be involved in overall coaching, or in administrative tasks and induction to the company.

In schemes where in-company training content is less structured, mandatory and common across companies, trainers are required to step in and engage intensively in designing and monitoring in-company training, and spend significant time working with VET staff to this purpose. Although flexibility in the workplace component is generally perceived as a benefit for participating companies, excessive room for adjustment seems to add pressure on trainers.

Focusing on the training practices and methods used in individual companies is a demanding exercise. A detailed reference to how training actually takes place in individual workplaces remains less clear. However, several papers provide useful information on general approaches and methods used in principle, that can inform and guide the practices followed at company level.