Yet another grievance with the current dual vocational education and training system

Image created using AI.

License Creative Commons

Lola Vilches Batet

The implementation of the new Dual Vocational Education and Training (VET) model has caused concern among teachers, particularly because of the conditions under which students are required to combine training at their educational institution with work-based activity in a company. The new system provides for approximately 1,000 hours of work-based training and, in order to complete the vocational training programme within the planned two years, many students have to begin this placement as early as the first year, when they still lack the knowledge and technical skills needed to work independently in the sector.

This situation is compounded by the changes introduced by the new VET regulations arising from the Organic Law 3/2022 on the Organisation and Integration of Vocational Education and Training (Ley Orgánica 3/2022). The former modules Formación y Orientación Laboral (FOL) (Vocational Training and Career Guidance) and Empresa e Iniciativa Emprendedora (EIE) (Enterprise and Entrepreneurship), which were common to all vocational training programmes, have been replaced by Itinerario Personal para la Empleabilidad I (IPO I) (Personal Employability Pathway I) and Itinerario Personal para la Empleabilidad II (IPO II) (Personal Employability Pathway II).

The problem is particularly apparent in the case of the former FOL module. This module was divided into two independent training units: UF1, focused on entering the labour market, and UF2, devoted to Occupational Risk Prevention (PRL). The latter had a particularly important role, since certification of PRL knowledge was a necessary requirement for being able to undertake a work placement. Students could therefore not begin their placement in a company without first completing the relevant training in occupational risk prevention.

Under the reform, IPO I is divided into five Learning Outcomes (LOs), which are no longer independent. This means that, in order to pass the module in the first year, students must demonstrate achievement of all the LOs. Among them is LO2, relating to Occupational Risk Prevention, which remains essential for being able to begin a company placement.

Here an important contradiction arises. What happens when a student fails one or more LOs and therefore does not achieve IPO I? Under a coherent interpretation of the system, the student should not pass the module and, consequently, should not continue their company placement if they have not achieved LO2 in Occupational Risk Prevention. This could mean ending the placement agreement and repeating the module the following year.

However, this solution creates a considerable problem for schools and, in particular, for work-placement tutors. These professionals take on numerous responsibilities: finding companies, drawing up agreements, allocating students, monitoring their placements, dealing with incidents and resolving any conflicts that may arise during the placement. The early termination of an agreement may also entail the risk of losing a partner company. This situation is particularly serious in certain sectors, where it is already difficult to find companies willing to take on students who still have little experience and limited technical skills.

This creates considerable pressure on teaching teams. On the one hand, students need to have the opportunity to qualify within two years and need to complete their placements. On the other, tutors need to maintain a sufficient network of partner companies to ensure that these placements can take place. Without companies there are no agreements, and without agreements many students cannot complete their training pathway.

In this context, the FOL specialist may come under pressure to pass students who have not in fact achieved all the expected learning outcomes. As a result, at the final assessment meeting, fundamental content relating to employment rights and obligations, the interpretation of an employment contract, collective agreements and payslips, as well as the professional and transversal skills needed to function effectively in the labour market, may ultimately be signed off as passed even though they have not actually been mastered.

This article seeks to highlight how this situation contributes to devaluing the FOL specialism and the content traditionally covered in this area. Knowledge relating to employment relations, occupational risk prevention and employability should not be regarded as secondary, since it is essential for students to know their rights, assume their responsibilities and enter the labour market with judgement and autonomy.

To address this problem, several alternatives are proposed below. One possible solution would be for the LOs in the IPO I module to become independent again, as was the case with the former FOL module, so that once a student has achieved LO2 in Occupational Risk Prevention, they would already meet the requirement for beginning a company placement.

Another possible option would be to reduce the number of hours spent in the company and concentrate them mainly in the second year, partially restoring the previous model. This would mean that students reached the company with stronger technical and transversal preparation and, above all, after having fully completed IPO I and LO2 in Occupational Risk Prevention.

Finally, the current number of placement hours could be maintained, but in that case placements would begin only in the second year, once IPO I had been fully completed. If students were unable to complete all the hours within the two years, a third year could be considered in order to finish them.

However, this final alternative conflicts with the aim of having students complete the training cycle in just two years. According to the article, prioritising deadlines and academic outcomes in this way may ultimately shift the pressure onto teachers, especially work-placement tutors, who take on a heavy administrative and management burden, even during periods such as July, without financial compensation proportionate to the responsibilities they assume.

Ultimately, the new Dual VET model presents contradictions that affect both students and teachers. The need to ensure rapid placement in companies and achieve the qualification within two years may conflict with the need for students to enter the world of work with adequate preparation and basic knowledge of employment rights and occupational risk prevention.

The final criticism is that the system may end up prioritising the immediate availability of labour over quality vocational education and training. For this reason, I describe this model as ‘low-cost VET’, in which the needs of the labour market and businesses may ultimately take precedence over students’ comprehensive education and the professional dignity and working conditions of teachers.

Source: educational EVIDENCE

Rights: Creative Commons