Knowledge, skills, competence: European divergences in vocational education and training (VET)—the English, German and Dutch cases

Abstract

Oxford Review of Education 0305-4985 (print)/1465-3915 (online) Original Article 2007 Taylor & Francis 00 0 0000002007 MichaelaBrockmann M.Brockmann@wmin.ac.ukPolicy debates on employability, lifelong learning and competence-based approaches suggest a convergence of VET approaches across European countries. Against the background of the creation of a European Qualifications Framework, this paper compares the VET systems of England, Germany and The Netherlands. The analysis reveals the distinct understandings and meanings of outwardly similar terms. These meanings are deeply rooted in the countries' institutional structures and labour processes and still inform national debates and policies today. The paper identifies a major distinction between a 'knowledge-based' VET model in Germany and The Netherlands and a 'skills-based' model in England. There is a need to develop trans-national categories that take into account the social construction of terms such as 'skills' and 'qualifications'.

Scientific Legitimation of the European Union’s Competence Development Policy

“…Mulder et al (2007) analyze "the lack of a coherent definition of the concept of competence, the lack of a one-to-one relationship between competence and performance, the misled notion that employing the concept of competence decreases the value of knowledge, the difficulties of designing competence-based educational principles at the curriculum and instruction levels, the underestimation of the organizational consequences of competence-based education and the many problems in the field of competence assessment" in most European countries. In their research Knowledge, skills, competence: European Divergences in Vocational Education and Training (VET), Brockmann et al (2008) also observe:…”

Continuing vocational training and innovation in Europe

“…Similarly, the emphasis on CVT and the effects of CVT on innovation are also likely to vary between nations. For example, a previous comparative study (Brockmann, Clarke, and Winch, 2008) has shown that major distinctions exist between the 'knowledge-based' VET models of Germany and the Netherlands and the 'skills-based' VET model of England. However, the underlying trend between CVT and innovation should be visible despite these country-specific characteristics.…”

Qualifications Frameworks Between Global and European Pressures and Local Responses

“…The EQF was therefore a kind of medium for the transfer of the influence of the Anglo-Saxon type of frameworks to other systems (cf. Bohlinger, 2007Bohlinger, /2008Brockmann et al, 2008bBrockmann et al, , 2009Winterton, 2009). The new type of framework differs from the old type in at least three characteristics: (a) Its fundamental starting point is learning outcomes: Even the EQF abandoned the logic of input and replaced it with the logic of output (Méhaut & Winch, 2012): Systems of vocational education and training or qualifications systems differ too much from country to country, embedded as they are in different relationships between the state, the labor market, and employers, for it to be possible or logical to unify them.…”

“…In some countries, these are divided into several sub-categories-cognitive, functional, social, and so on-or are understood as one of the dimensions of learning outcomes (alongside knowledge and skills; Brockmann et al, 2008aBrockmann et al, , 2008bGehmlich, 2008, Winterton, 2009). Winterton (2009) and Gehmlich (2008) claim that a broader, competence-based understanding of learning outcomes is the basis for a system that leads toward more comprehensive and better quality knowledge and is also closer to the continental European understanding of educational attainment.…”

“…The main purpose of the EQF is to promote the mobility of the workforce and the learning population via the formulation of common principles in the conception of qualifications. We will attempt to demonstrate that the development of the EQF and NQF has been influenced by two sources: on one hand, by the Anglo-Saxon countries, which were the first to establish a modern type of qualifications framework (Brockmann, Clarke, & Winch, 2008bCort, 2010;Young & Allais, 2009, and on the other, by global neoliberal policy, through instruments that tend toward the deregulation, marketization, and commodification of education. At the same time, we will try to show that NQFs in continental Europe have resulted, by virtue of their local specificities, in frameworks that differ considerably from qualifications in the Anglo-Saxon countries.…”