Effective school-to-work programs require partnerships between educators and employers. As noted throughout this paper, the apparent success of school-to-work systems in the German-speaking countries seems to be associated with the exceptional degree of responsibility that employers have taken for the education and training of young people, which necessitates close collaboration with educational authorities in planning, implementing, and monitoring apprenticeships (Hamilton, 1990; Soskice, 1994). This collaboration in education and training is part of a larger set of joint decision-making relationships between governments and representatives of business and labor, often called the "social partners." This joint decision-making influences wage determination, health and retirement benefits, unemployment programs, and other social issues.
In other nations on the European continent, employers traditionally have not participated in the education and training of young people to the same degree as in the German-speaking countries, but the tradition of centralized decision-making between government and the social partners does exist. As described in previous sections, many of these countries have adopted policies to increase employer involvement in education and training. The existence of centralized decision-making with the social partners facilitates the adoption and implementation of these policies. The examples of Denmark and the Netherlands will be described in this section.
The English-speaking countries generally lack both the tradition of major employer participation in the education and training of young people and the tradition of strong centralized decision-making between the government and the social partners. When governments in these countries seek to increase employer involvement in youth education and training, the absence of a forum for joint decision-making with the social partners makes the adoption and implementation of such policies relatively difficult. Recent experiences in the United Kingdom and Australia will be summarized in this section.
In Denmark, vocational education reform carried out between 1989 and 1991[11] has created a governance structure based upon strong central and local cooperation, both formal and informal, between education and labor market constituencies (Østerlund, 1994). The social partners have such a "strong comprehensive influence . . . [that] no important decisions are made without their participation" (OECD: Denmark, 1994, pp. 7, 18). The social partners are represented on committees that function on local and national levels to develop and maintain vocational schooling and in-company training courses, and establish recognized certification in vocational training and education programs.
The Federal Ministry of Education sets the overall, general objectives and rules for the content and financing of vocational courses based upon recommendations from its social partner advisory board, the Vocational and Training Council, comprised of representatives appointed by the Danish Confederation of Trade Unions and the Employers' Confederation. It advises the Ministry on issues such as the objectives and structures of courses, approval of new courses, program analysis, research and development, the general qualification of teachers, and student entry requirements. The Ministry's orders are then carried out by its executive body, the Department of Vocational Education and Training.
National Trade Committees, formed by industry associations and labor unions, are responsible for formulating the technical objectives and qualification descriptions for vocational education; assuring that curriculum, standards, and assessment meet current labor market needs; and setting up the rules for the practical in-company component of training (Jenkins, 1995; Østerlund, 1994). Although they are clearly the vocational arm of the training process, trade committees have "acquired a great deal of influence over the school portion of vocational education and training" and now provide input into the duration, structure, contents, and targets of courses in basic subjects, trainee periods, placement, and testing (OECD: Denmark, 1994, p. 9). Unlike many countries where industry groups take on a policy advisory mode, trade committees in Denmark "play a central role in governance of technical colleges where the in-school portion of vocational education takes place" by getting involved in the specifics of curriculum development and reducing the proliferation and overspecialization once found in technical education programs (Jenkins, 1995, p. 2).
Local Education and Training Committees, made up of local employers, employees, and educators, are appointed by the National Trade Committees to advise schools, promote cooperation between education and labor market participants, and assure that training meets current local standards. With Danish reform efforts emphasizing a decentralized vocational system, Local School Governing Boards, using input from local education and training committees, have almost exclusive freedom for planning, curriculum, and financial management of vocational programs. All detailed educational planning and execution, once a federal responsibility of the Ministry of Education, has been assigned to the local level. Consistent with current reform policy, membership on local school governing boards is divided equally among Danish social partners.
The existence of these deliberative and joint decision-making bodies at various levels has helped to create consensus about the direction of education and training, and to carry it out. The result, as described in previous sections, is that the Danish system has evolved toward a flexible web of interconnected programs, allowing students to move back and forth between vocational and academic pathways.
Vocational education reform in the Netherlands has also relied extensively on governance from "national tripartite bodies" comprised of representatives from industry and vocational education. These National Bodies for Vocational Education develop occupational profiles and translate these profiles into elements of competence in secondary vocational education. They constitute an important link between industry, the government, and educational institutions having primary responsibility for the realization of a single qualification system for both the MBO (upper secondary education) and the apprenticeship system (Streumer, 1994; Van den Dool & Weijs, 1994). Reforms under this structure have been successful in integrating secondary vocational education into four main sectors (technical, administrative, service, and agricultural), merging educational institutions into larger entities, and decentralizing vocational administration to make education more effective and efficient in meeting industry needs (OECD: Netherlands, 1992).
The initiatives taking place in the Netherlands include closer linkages between vocational educators and industry, particularly between local companies who offer student internships and serve on or administer advisory boards and vocational schools. Not only are senior secondary and higher vocational education teachers offered internships to upgrade their skills and facilitate the implementation of new industry techniques in the school, but company employees are encouraged to serve as visiting or practical teachers to offer current vocational knowledge and teach new skills and aptitudes applicable to vocational practice (Streumer, 1994). There is also evidence of strong instructional cooperation and communication emerging between vocational schools and companies in efforts to adapt curriculum to current career pathways in the local labor markets.
Especially notable in the Netherlands is the involvement of educators from both vocational and general education at secondary and higher levels in developing a new, more unified, vocational qualification system (Streumer, 1994). Although national focus has remained on the development of intermediate workforce skills, there is an increasing emphasis on workforce preparation in all levels in the educational community--even the college level. The government has supported institutional integration at higher vocational education levels by fusing "colleges providing only full-time courses with those delivering the school-based element of apprenticeship courses [in the hope that] bringing these different learning routes under the same roof could give an impetus to innovation on both sides" (Van den Dool & Weijs, 1994, p. 4). Not only has there been growth in the number of vocational courses offered throughout the entire system but a movement toward more occupational practice in the vocational courses themselves. Many lower level general education courses have added a career exploration component (Van den Dool & Weijs, 1994). Likewise, many universities have strengthened the vocational elements within their initial courses by adding internships and practical assignments--up to 10% of the first phase of schooling (Streumer, 1994).
Although both vocational and academic educators appear to be working toward similar goals by including vocational components in both of their curriculums, there is little solid evidence to indicate that they are doing this together in any sort of unified forum. While vocational and general educators both appear to be working more closely with industry, they are not necessarily cooperating with each other. This is similar to the situation in Denmark where there is direct collaboration between vocational educators and industry but the cooperation between vocational and academic educators is more indirect.
The United Kingdom has attempted in various ways to involve educators and employers in joint governance of education and training. Since the early 1980s, several industry-based efforts have dominated the development of occupational standards in England. In particular, the government delegated the task of identifying specific standards of competence required for particular occupations and jobs to the Industry Lead Bodies. These bodies were mostly made up of employers and sponsored by the Department of Employment. A 1981 white paper, "A New Training Initiative: A Programme for Action," issued by the government, highlighted the key role that education must take in training. The paper promoted occupational and academic integration by stating that ". . . the basic concept of providing a foundation of skills and knowledge by a combination of off the job training, classroom teaching, and work experience is as relevant as ever" (OECD: United Kingdom, 1994).
The National Council for Vocational Qualification (NCVQ) was established in 1986 to rectify the lack of consistency among existing standards and confusion among employers regarding the value of different levels and qualifications developed by various industry-awarding bodies. NCVQ was given responsibility for setting up a unified framework for vocational qualifications as well as overseeing and coordinating the standards set by industry associations and awarding bodies (Payne, 1994). Their framework formed the basis for National Vocational Qualifications (NVQs), which are primarily, but not exclusively, intended to assess the work-based performance of employees of all ages.
The NVQs are specifically designed to be independent of any educational system or program. This has the advantage of allowing certification for workers who learned their skills informally or in a program that is not attached to a particular certification scheme. The approach is designed to put certification and training squarely in the hands of employers (OECD: United Kingdom, 1994). While educators have begun to develop curricula around the NVQs, they have so far played a relatively minor role. One of the emerging problems with the NVQ system though is that the private sector has had less training capacity than had been expected. Thus, while there was substantial employer involvement in the process of defining the NVQs as skill standards, educators are playing a much greater role in the delivery of training (Vickers, 1995b).
In contrast to the NVQs, the new vocational secondary degree--the General National Vocational Qualification (GNVQ)--is school-based. In this case, there appears to be a growing collaboration between vocational and general (or academic) teachers, although up to this point, employers take a decidedly secondary role in this system (OECD: United Kingdom, 1994). Thus, the NVQ system is primarily employer-based with a minimal role for educators, while the GNVQ system has made progress on integrating vocational and academic education with much less involvement from employers.
The implementation of the Scottish Vocational Qualification (SVQ) system appears to have achieved a more balanced partnership between the education system and the private sector than its English counterpart. Vocational education in Scotland is regulated by the Scottish Vocational Education Council (SCOTVEC), an independent entity created in 1985. SCOTVEC runs vocational and technical education and training and works with both the employers and Further Education Colleges. SCOTVEC was developed by consolidating the Scottish Business Education Council (SCOTBEC) and the Scottish Technical Education Council (SCOTEC) and works as a private company under the general oversight of the Scottish Secretary of State to develop and promote vocational education and training as a national policy. SCOTVEC has the authority to develop and accredit courses and modules, award certificates (including SVQs), and approve alternative training providers.
When the SVQ system was established in 1986, it was built on the previously existing Scottish Action Plan which was developed in the early 1980s. The Scottish Action Plan developed a set of modules leading to a National Certificate (NC). Modules required approval by SCOTVEC, and any organization could teach them as long as it achieved SCOTVEC approval. In practice, employers and educators worked together to define skill standards, and the Further Education Colleges developed curricula to teach the NC modules. Thus, educators have been intensively involved with the SVQ system since its inception. In a system where educational institutions already had a stronger role, SVQ reforms created a more even balance of influence by strengthening the role of employers (Vickers, 1995b).
Also in contrast to the situation in England, the General Scottish Vocational Qualification (GSVQ) is closely related to the SVQs. In England, there is relatively less interaction between the NVQ and GNVQ systems. Things are different in Scotland because both SVQ and GSVQ systems emerged from the NC system developed by the Scottish Action Plan (OECD: Scotland, 1994). Thus, the developments in Scotland have brought together employers with both vocational and academic educators.
Australia's vocational reform has been successful in developing a strong national framework, based on national industry competence standards, for involving industry representatives in the governance of vocational education (OECD: Australia, 1994). In some fields, especially metalworking, automotive, and tourism and hospitality, employer input to the development of competency-based standards has been strong, as has support for implementation. However, the level of support is not consistent across industries. As in Denmark, there is overt cooperation between vocational educators and employers, but less obvious cooperation between vocational and academic educators.
The Federal Government has assumed an important role in promoting national consistency across the country's training systems as well as redefining traditional roles and relationships (OECD: Australia, 1994). The national Australian Standards Framework (ASF) is the primary vehicle for industry participation centering around competency standards established by each industry (Noonan, 1994). By the end of 1994, standards endorsed by the National Training Board covered more than half of the Australian workforce. Under the National Framework for Recognition of Training (NFROT), states and territories register training providers and validate industry-developed assessment and certification mechanisms. Training providers may be TAFE colleges, accredited firms, or private-sector training vendors. Within the NFROT framework, states and territories take responsibility for the recognition of accredited courses, for funding the provision of training programs, and for awarding credentials for vocational training (OECD: Australia, 1992).
New pay structures favoring broadly based, multiskilled workers led, in tandem with the industry standards being developed, to joint education and labor participation in MOVEET (the Ministry for Vocational Education, Employment, and Training). This new Ministerial Council involves "ranges of Commonwealth and State officials and key industry people who were committed to a common agenda involving both a more industry driven and responsive system and the need for these reforms to be undertaken on a nationally consistent basis" (Noonan, 1994, p. 13). In past governance structures, State and Federal Ministerial Council members, in charge of industrial relations and labor issues, worked separately from Ministers who were responsible for the more educational aspects of the TAFE system. In contrast, the new merged system allows "industrial relations, training and industry issues to be considered in an integrated way" (p. 13).
Securing the participation of private sector employers in Australia has not been easy, although some firms and sectors such as Qantas, the automobile industry, and the hospitality and tourism industries have been very much involved with training. Thus, as Goozee (1995) points out, "At present, the capacity of employers and their willingness to participate in the system is largely untested and uneven where it does exist" (p. 119). Given the convoluted structure of state and national employer associations in Australia,[12] the country lacks a unified voice for employers. This has created marked differences and fragmentation among employers regarding current vocational reform issues such as "the future of the apprenticeship system, the importance of enterprise-based training models for young people, the role of national standards and the conditions under which structured training should be extended" (Sweet, 1993, p. 3).
Although vocational educators are involved in vocational reform at the national level, educators at the local level are not always committed to the Australian Vocational Education and Training (VET) reform agenda which "commands wide support among Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments, employers, and unions" (OECD: Australia, 1992, p. 4). Reported observations of union and employer representatives indicate a lack of educational integration leading to "total bewilderment that is the common reaction of classroom teachers to the reform process . . . [and] complaints from teachers that the agenda is a top down one in which they have no involvement" (Sweet, 1993, p. 1). On the other hand, some of this resentment may be accounted for by the rapid pace of change that the Australian educational system has experienced in the last few years.
In sum, Australia has achieved a significant reform of its vocational education governance structure. National-level government officials, educators, union representatives, and employers have devised more cooperative procedures. Still, more work will be necessary to gain the full participation of the more academically oriented teachers and local-level employers and educators.
All of these countries have worked to forge partnerships between employers and vocational and academic educators. Securing the full participation and cooperation of academic educators in these reforms has received much less attention than the participation of employers. In many cases, the developments that we have been discussing are seen as reforms of the vocational education system. The Netherlands is an interesting case in which attempts have been made to strengthen this aspect of the governance structure. One result is that the reforms have started to influence the content of the academic as well as the vocational streams.
[11] The Vocational Education and Training Act and Law 210 for vocational schools and Law 211 for vocational education and training were passed between 1989 and 1991 to replace the 1956 Apprenticeship Act and the 1977 EFG Act on Basic Vocational Education (OECD, 1994).
[12] Australia has three or four primary national employer bodies "depending on how you define them" and about eighty secondary bodies with variable overlap between the two. Several hundred state employer associations exist (Sweet, 1993).