Editorial

Abstract

The English and German Vocational Education and Training (VET) systems differ in many ways, for instance in their structures, courses, institutional providers and the roles of the state and private stakeholders. They also differ in their underlying philosophies, and the place they occupy within their respective national education systems and societies. At the same time both systems have their specific relevance in the international context. The Anglo-Saxon VET approach with its fragmented and output-oriented design, based on the principles of employer-oriented industrial training, has strongly influenced the European Union (EU) education policy and the connected policy instruments, such as the European Qualifications Framework (EQF), or the European Credit System for Vocational Education and Training (ECVET). In this way, the Anglo-Saxon approach seems to affect other national education policies and hence the developments of other VET systems in Europe. The German dual apprenticeship system with its rather holistic approach based on staterecognised occupations (Berufe) and the entitlement to combine education and qualification is otherwise often seen as a model for a well-functioning VET approach, regularly referred to by other countries when looking for reform inputs. The interest in the dual apprenticeship system has increased once again after the financial crisis of 2008, due to the low youth unemployment rate in Germany at that time. Therefore, a deeper look into the English and German VET seems to be worthwhile to compare, contrast, and understand the different approaches to VET in these two countries, and how they might influence other national VET systems. During the past two decades comparative analyses have been carried out on selected aspects of English and German VET. These have focused on issues such as the design of apprenticeship programmes, differences in learning cultures, and the philosophies that underpin the structure of VET in these countries. Differences are therefore reflected in, for instance, the understanding about knowledge, skills, and competences within each system, or the German concept of Beruf which has no counterpart in England. However, comparative studies on policy-making and governance in VET in these two countries are rather scarce. Yet studies of this type promise to shed new light on the structure, operation, and outputs of VET in England and Germany, and offer a more detailed insight into their approaches regarding change and development. It has to be said,

Higher vocational education and social mobility: educational participation in Australia and England

“…Whilst the developments in higher vocational education have followed different trajectories in Anglo-Saxon and German systems (Kuhlee and Laczik 2015), the focus of this article will be on exploring the implications of participation data in two Anglophone countries, Australia and England for understanding how higher education expansion affects opportunities for different social groups. This is because as Bathmaker (2016) notes, in the context of the UK goals of the coalition government from 2010 and more recently, the majority Conservative government from 2015, vocational education and training has been promoted as the preferred pathway to higher education qualifications for certain types of people.…”

Comparative VET European research since the 1980s: accommodating changes in VET systems and labour markets

“…Brockmann, Clarke, and Winch 2008), governance issues (e.g. Kuhlee and Laczik 2015), and broader concepts of labour agency (e.g. Winch 2014).…”

Impact of the Europeanisation of education: Qualifications frameworks in Europe

“…The Anglo-Saxon philosophy of vocational education and training, with its output-oriented design and employer-oriented training, has heavily influenced European education policy and its instruments, e.g. the European Credit System for Vocational Education and Training (ECVET) and the European Skills, Competences and Occupations tool (ESCO) (Clarke and Winch, 2015; Kuhlee and Laczik, 2015).…”