Roundtable :“Vocational training, learning outcomes and social dialogue: European differences and points of convergence” ETUC Conference, 2-3 september 2010, Brussels With the support of the European Commission

Lifelong Learning in EU : an already long story By the mid-1990s, Delors white paper was the initial source of common programs (Erasmus, Comenius, Leonardo da Vinci…) and processes (Bologna, Copenhagen)  to overcome the usual dualism between initial and continuing education by promoting permanent education : LLL is the new watchword  to promote mutual recognition of qualifications and skills  to encourage individual mobility in Europe The 2000s : Lisbon strategy and Open Method of Coordination applied to education  Guidelines to set out coherent national strategies  Strategic objectives: Quality and effectiveness of education and training systems Access of all to education and training Opening up to the world  Detailed objectives and indicators to benchmark and influence the national practices

Vocational Education and Training : some key issues of the Communication from the EC 1 (june 2010) To equip the people with the right mix of skills (IVET) and to update it (CVET)  To balance : key competencies (= foundation for Life Long Learning) and vocational skills (= professional excellence) standardized skills (factor of productivity) and creative personal competencies (factor of innovation)  To foster LLL-friendly VET systems : easy access to CVET guidance services and individualisation of learning pathways Transparent and consistent recognition of learning outcomes To modernize the VET systems:  Convergent NQF referenced to EQF to foster permeability between VET and Higher Education (HE) to open barriers and ceilings by transparent qualifications and portability of learning outcomes  To make transnational mobility a way for upskilling (ECVET)  Quality culture thanks to quality assurance policy (EQAVET)  Sector councils: involvement of social partners to spread information and best practices (design, organisation, delivery and financing of VET) 1 Source: “New impetus for European cooperation in Vocational Education and Training to support the Europe 2020 strategy”, European Commission, COM(2010) 296 final, 9 June 2010

Vocational training : persistent differences and common problems between national systems Different groups of countries, on the basis of two criteria: the relationship between CVET and IVET (integration or separation) and the nature of CVET’s regulation (centralised, decentralised, weak)  CVET integrated in IVET system (nordic countries)  probably an advantage for promoting Lifelong Learning  CVET and IVET separate (continental and mediterranean countries), with a contractual regulation, more or less decentralized, of CVET  the progressive and unequal emergence of an individual right of workers to training  the stake of qualification frameworks to extend the transferability of personal skills  Weak regulation of CVET, whose intensity depends mainly on the unilateral efforts of firms (UK)  the role of NVQ to signal the competencies of the individuals on the labour market  Shortcomings of vocational training and social dialogue in Central Eastern European Countries Inequalities and common problems  Strong inequalities among countries concerning the access to CVET  This inequality is stronger for small firms : SME’s workers frequently outside the CVET  common problems: access of SME’s workers to training and appeal of SMEs to talents

Vocational training embedded in idiosyncratic systems of industrial relations, labour markets and public policies If vocational training is key concern of Sector Councils as networking of national bodies, it is crucial to take structural differences between member countries into account From theoretical point of view, different policy regimes for LLL 1 : combination of political principles, actors’ strategies, rules and instruments  Decommodified regimes: Corporatist (basic principle: access to a professional community) Academic (basic principle: school-based merit system) Universal (basic principle : compensation of initial inequalities)  Market Regimes: Pure competition market (basic principle: utility of services provided for individual human capital) Organised market (basic principle: fair price and quality of services developing skills as social capital) National models = specific compromises between typical regimes The European approach could be also be understood as a new combination of regimes :  Corporatist (sector councils), universal (fair opportunities and transitions for all workers), organised market (pro-active training providers regulated by common rules) …  … helping to correct national deficiencies and to spread best practices effectively 1 see: Eric Verdier, European LLL Strategy and diversity of national devices: an interpretation in terms of public policy regimes, 2009