Editorial

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 state-recognised 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, however, that ‘the concept of governance is notoriously slippery; it is frequently used among both social scientists and practitioners without a definition which all agree on’ (Pierre and Peters, 2000:7). In ordinary parlance, governance in English-speaking countries is often associated with questions on steering in the traditional sense, on how to run organizations and to set practices and techniques. In academic contexts the use of the term is diverse. Nevertheless, the term ‘governance’ shows typically a strong closeness to governing and government, although the terms are not synonyms (for a different usage, see e.g. Rhodes, 2007:1246). In the German language the term ‘governance’ has no equivalent. In academic contexts, especially in the political sciences, the English term ‘governance’ has been introduced to discuss a certain perspective on policy-making and governing processes not covered by a German term. This perspective adopts a rather critical attitude against the traditional hierarchical steering approach by the state as associated with the German understanding of the state under the rule of law. Here the state in its sovereign position is seen as the player to steer society and its developments by direct legislation. The term ‘governance’ focuses, in contrast, on the roles of the diverse stakeholders influencing policy-making and implementation processes, their specific interests and their interaction during those processes, and the influence they have on the results eventually generated. The term thereby especially emphasises the diverse institutional arrangements which regulate those stakeholders and their acts and which influence the outcomes of policy negotiation and implementation processes. The state, however, is not necessarily seen as the dominant stakeholder here, but rather as one stakeholder amongst many (e.g. Mayntz, 2009, 2010).

Taking these considerations into account this Special Issue seeks to answer questions on how the VET systems in England and Germany are governed and regulated in this broader sense, and how this influences their actual development. The question is therefore, how do the two VET systems react to changing demands of the labour market and society? In international and comparative educational research these questions have not so far been empirically analysed and intensely discussed. Previous attempts to categorize the two VET systems according to the ways they are governed and regulated have identified a so-called liberal-market system in England, and a mixed-regulation system of state and market structures in Germany. However, this categorization, based on the structural duality model of state and market, is rather broad. It provides little insight into the complex macro- and micro-level governance processes and their role in the development of national VET systems in response to the changing demands of the labour market and of society.

Consequently, this Special Issue aims at discussing the following broad questions: what are the approaches and ways to govern and to develop the VET systems in England and Germany? How do the VET systems respond to the changing demands of society and the labour market? Finally, what are the outcomes of political reform intentions and the connected policies?

Therefore, this Special Issue identifies, compares and contrasts some of the specific characteristics of policy-making and governance in VET in England and Germany. It seeks to distinguish differences in the policy-making and governance of VET and in the approaches both countries take to developing their VET systems. Timely issues relevant to VET and associated policy-making and governance processes are discussed for each of the two countries. These include: (a) the role of international education policy and its influence on national VET developments; (b) current labour market structures and demands, and their relationships with VET; (c) disadvantaged young people’s participation in VET and recent and current policy development in support of these young people; and (d) the influence and effects of reform processes in other educational areas on VET, such as Higher Education (HE). Taking recent developments in these fields into account, this Special Issue demonstrates the different conditions under which the English and German systems operate, and questions the adaptability of the two national VET systems to political reform.

The first pair of chapters of this Special Issue looks into the general features of the English and the German VET system, policy-making and governance approaches within them. Ewart Keep discusses the fragmented and highly complex VET system in England, its institutional design and the resulting problems arising for policy-making and governance. He applies a critical approach to the relatively strong role of the government regarding policy-making and the rather weak involvement of other stakeholders such as unions and employers. Recent politically imposed trends especially in the financial structure and in concepts of devolution and performance measurement in VET are analysed, reflecting on their disruptive character and on their potential to undermine the functioning of the already fractured system. In contrast, Dina Kuhlee focuses on the main route in the German VET system, the dual apprenticeship system. She outlines the central features of the so-called duality that are connected to a divided responsibility between the state and the private enterprises concerning the provision of school-based vocational education and in-company training within the system. She discusses the underlying legislative and institutional structure, and the role and functioning of federalism and corporatism within that structure. She looks into the tripartite social partnership approach as a governance arrangement in more detail, and outlines the problems arising as a result of the different and changing interests of the stakeholders involved. Among selected examples she shows the difficulties of introducing reforms in German VET within the given governance arrangement.

The second pair of chapters discusses developments in the HE sectors in England and Germany and their impact on VET. In both countries there are a growing percentage of people with an academic degree and a tendency to merge the HE sector and the VET sector. In Germany, this is an especially recent trend. Traditionally a rather strong segmented structure between the two sectors exists with a high percentage of VET qualification holders and a comparatively low number of HE degree holders. Andrä Wolter and Christian Kerst analyse the trend of so-called ‘academisation’ and its effects on HE and VET in Germany. They discuss two important drivers of this trend: the political intentions to enhance participation rates in HE; and the changing demand for educational qualifications by young people with a stronger focus on HE. In more detail they examine two recently introduced policy instruments (dual study programmes and the reformed access for non-traditional students) to enhance the permeability of the two sectors. The interconnection between HE and VET in England is analysed by Gareth Parry. He analyses the politically motivated broadening of vocational zones within the HE sector. He discusses the institutional complexity in the provision of the different pathways. The paper reflects on the traditionally strong role of the HE sector in the post-18 education sector and the difficulties in establishing a similar solid sector for qualifications ‘in the middle’. For both countries the interconnection of the two sectors is a highly relevant theme, although the traditional strong divide between the sectors persists. In Germany, the growing participation rate in the HE sector might affect the demand for VET training places in the near future and, hence, the traditionally strong position of VET in the education system and of VET qualification holders in the labour market. Also this can be discussed controversially as the contributions in this issue indicate. In England recent policy initiatives support the development of a higher vocational education in both the HE and FE sectors. It is yet to be seen how this more diverse HE system with its higher vocational education would lead to employment.

Sue Maguire, and Mona Granato, Elisabeth M. Krekel and Joachim Gerd Ulrich discuss issues surrounding the integration of young people from disadvantaged backgrounds into vocational education and employment in England and Germany. The different definition of this group of young people is outlined for the two countries and the policy developments supporting these young people are discussed. In England the pressing issue is whether the disadvantaged young people are involved in any form of post-16 education, training or employment. In Germany the widely discussed question is whether these young people have gained an apprenticeship place. Although alternative VET programmes exist in Germany for those without a traditional apprenticeship place in the so-called transition sector (Übergangssystem), these programmes do not lead to full state-recognised vocational qualifications. The rise of the sector in the last decades is seen as a highly problematic trend. One of the currently discussed political solutions is a so-called training guarantee. Mona Granato, Elisabeth M. Krekel and Joachim Gerd Ulrich analyse the different positions and interests of VET stakeholders with regard to such a training guarantee, their perceived influence on the policy-making processes, and finally the chances to get a training guarantee implemented in Germany. Sue Maguire discusses one of the latest policy interventions, the Youth Contract, in support of young people between the ages of 16 and 24 who are Not in Education, Employment, or Training (NEET). While this national programme failed in terms of the number of young people involved, and sustained positive outcomes, there is a strong demand for interventions with similar aims. She argues for tailor-made interventions that meet the needs of all young people, unemployed, excluded, disengaged, who come under the umbrella of “NEET”.

Both countries have been confronted with a range of challenges in relation to labour market demand and VET provision. These include the often discussed shift from an industrial economy to a service- and knowledge-based economy, the long-term impact of the financial crisis, and the rising number of temporal and precarious employment contracts. These lead to the urgent question of whether the labour market and the VET system are sufficiently connected. This is discussed by Andrea Laczik and Ken Mayhew for the English and by Christian Ebner for the German context. Andrea Laczik and Ken Mayhew especially outline the most recent developments in education in England and analyse the link between human capital and economic growth, production and productivity (quality of education and training), and how high and low specification products may determine economic competitiveness. They argue that the expansion of higher education led to underutilisation of skills of graduates due to employers not altering their product offer, for example, aimed at higher product specification. They also speculate that even if the economy moves to higher specification products in England this would not necessarily increase the overall demand for skill. They also touch upon the other end of the spectrum, those young people who leave education with an inadequate level of numeracy and literacy skills and their place in the labour market. Christian Ebner outlines the specific labour market trends in Germany in the last 15 years and the connected and current labour market policies. He analyses the impact of those policies on VET qualification holders and on the systemic features of the VET system. He looks especially into the growing number of temporal and precarious employment contracts and their relevance for VET qualification holders. Eventually, he discusses the matching principles between the labour market and the VET system; overall both papers emphasise the importance of finding a match between the labour market and VET, and its possible difficulties.

The last pair of chapters reflects on the role of international, in particular EU, education policy for the English and the German VET systems. While Linda Clarke and Christopher Winch examine how the Anglo-Saxon vocational philosophy influenced EU policy developments, Thomas Deissinger reflects on how EU education policy impacts on the German VET system. Linda Clarke and Christopher Winch explain the underlying philosophies and design features of the Anglo-Saxon VET approach and its role in the design of EQF, ECVET, and currently ESCO (European Skills, Competences, Occupations). The Anglo-Saxon VET approach based on the industrial training philosophy could be considered as a blueprint for EU instruments. However, these authors discuss the low compatibility of the Anglo-Saxon approach to VET approaches existing in other European countries. In Germany, a highly controversial discussion emerged between the different VET stakeholders about the role of the EU instruments in the German VET system. Especially the underlying features such as modularisation and outcome-orientation are highly criticised, for example, by the German unions as shown by Thomas Deissinger. However, the different stakeholders take rather different positions. Consequently the results of the negotiation processes regarding the design, scope and development of the German Qualifications Framework (GQF) led to a rather ‘reinterpreted’ or ‘reduced’ version of GQF compared to its European counterpart.

This Special Issue offers detailed discussions of the English and German VET systems including their specificities in relation to policy-making and governance. While the chapter pairs cover the same thematic fields, they illustrate both the differences and the similarities between current themes and discussions connected to VET in the two countries. Therefore, this Special Issue provides both evidence of common, overarching topics in VET and examples of country-specific discussions, debates and initiatives related to these prevalent topics. This Special Issue gives an inspiring insight into the current state of VET in England and Germany and the historical backgrounds specific to each country, and how these influence political solutions to today’s challenges.