Open Space

Well done to everyone involved in the Process !!!

In the context of this discussion, the case of Armenia could probably be interesting. The Social Partnership (SP) in VET has been formalised in the country since 2009 when a Concept on SP was approved by the Government (recently, in 2018, a new Concept was adopted) and an institutionalised National VET Development Council was established (with ETF’s support). This is a tripartite body (7 representatives from each party: Government, Employers, and Trade Unions). And this Council really does work. Hot debates at every meeting (3-4 per year), considerable work between the meetings, and apparent impact on the policy design, are the evidence. Of course, a certain time required for these achievements. Presently, no any essentially important decision related to VET policy is taken or legal act is endorsed by the Ministry of Education, without being discussed and agreed with the Council.

At the institutional level, in every pubic VET institution there is a Governance Board based on the SP principles. Those Boards are supreme bodies of the institution management (unlike many countries, where these are only consultative councils) with a strong decision making power, including approval of the institution’s budget, election of the Director, approval of the institution’s Strategic Development Plans, etc. In over 80% of institutions, the Boards are chaired by the representatives of employers.

The Social Partners are involved also in defining the VET content and this process is also regulated by the legislation. For example, in the standards developing work groups, at least 3 of 5-6 members shall be representatives of employers.

Of course, there are similar good examples in other partner countries, too: e.g. in Ukraine with its Regional VET Councils, probably not yet fully effective but with evident huge potential, and with the Training-practical Centres patronised by private companies; in Kazakhstan with its new and successful initiative of VET institutions’ Trust Management; in Serbia with a variety of partnership forms between the private sector and the public VET system.

Thanks for adding useful country examples and key issues! The framework for capacity building of social partners developed by 114 may be of inspiration, it is here https://openspace.etf.europa.eu/pages/developing-capacity-better-partne…. 506 also asks: are social partners always self-aware of their key role in VET? In fact, their participation in VET policy making and provision varies across countries, and self-awareness is indeed an issue. This point is also discussed here https://openspace.etf.europa.eu/pages/social-partnership-issue.

Armenia, Kazakhstan, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Serbia and Ukraine appear in this conversation as countries where social partners have more than a mere consultative role, at least in some areas as 506 underlines. 1006 has documented the rapid change in Armenia, showing that social dialogue in VET can develop. How? both institutionalisation and practising are important in 1006 example. What about other countries?

Often the engagement starts from the necessity to collaborate. For example, on occupational standards and curricula in context of national qualifications frameworks; employers are at times analysing labour market trends at regional level, for example this has happened in Serbia; employers also see benefits from the growth of work-based learning, hence feel comfortable to engage in it. Trade unions on their part seem to rely on a more reactive role, and VET and skills development seem to be not on their agenda yet.

Why such a difference between employer and employee representatives regarding VET? Do you have the same or a different experience?