This paper is based on a forthcoming publication by the International Institute for Educational Planning, Paris
During the last decade, many countries have been increasingly concerned with assessment and certification of vocational qualifications. This can be explained by rising costs, while financial constraints are growing, which imply more control over costs and efficiency ; a new concern for the specific problems of the adult population ; the need for national standards, in order to guarantee the quality of training and to meet the changing requirements of the labour market.
Nearly all the literature on assessment and certification concerns industrialized countries, but these problems now arise in Central and Eastern Europe and in a number of developing countries. It is therefore necessary to take a new look at the main issues, keeping in mind their particular concerns, but also considering whether the experience of industrialized countries may be of any use for the others.
Assessment and certification take place in the middle of a process which can be summarized as follows:
Concerning vocational education and training, assessment refers to objectives which may have an educational and an economic dimension. Certification is the formal (or institutional) result of assessment and should normally be taken into account by employers. Assessment and certification have to be seen from a global perspective, at the interface between the educational system and the labour market system, taking into account their specific features.
Several basic questions may be raised to begin:
Why?: the role of certification
a) From the point of view of the education and training system, certification:
b) For individuals, certification may guarantee their investment in training, their opportunities for further training and for finding a job and may be an element of their personal status.
c) For the employers, certification is a way to assess the ability and competence of the people that they would like to recruit. It is a signal, which allows for a proper communication of actors on the labour market. Their attitude towards certification depends however:
If employers may find some value in the certification process, they may also have some reservations:
d) For the society as a whole:
In order to satisfy these various roles, the system of assessment and certification should as far as possible ensure:
Certification for whom? The target population
Traditionally, certification was mostly intended for young people at the end of their initial training. With the growing interest for life-long learning, there has been more concern for adults (see below).
What should be assessed?
From that point of view, there are roughly three different approaches:
These approaches are reflected to a large extent in the three case studies which will be presented below. The concept of competence, which is attached to the third one, has been also promoted by employers in order to emphasize their changing requirements. The problem is that there are many definitions for the term competence and various interpretations of the differences with the more traditional concepts of skills and qualifications. Basically, the idea is that competence implies less emphasis on the potentialities of an individual and more on actual ability to perform a job ; or competence would be closely related to action, but would be unstable, whereas skills would be more lasting, and more related to training and experience.
Concerning adults, the emphasis is now put on the recognition or accreditation of prior experience. Most countries are willing to develop a methodology to this effect, but it raises at least two questions:
The Irish concept of "accreditation of prior experience, achievement and learning" is an attempt to synthetise the various approaches. But it would seem that in any case it requires a lot of individual attention to each personal situation, so that it may be difficult to develop a simple system for large-scale assessment.
Who is in charge?
The objectives of the assessment of vocational qualifications reflect the objectives assigned to the training programmes and should normally take into account the requirements of the labour market, but also educational considerations. Depending upon the emphasis given to these elements, but also on each institutional and social context, the main responsibility for this rests rather with educational authorities, or with employers' representatives, or both.
The institutional responsibility for certification may belong to the State, to the schools, to the employers (when they provide the training) or to independent institutions.
How to proceed with assessment?
Assessment may be a continuous process or may be achieved through a single examination, which itself may be organized by teachers inside the training institution, or by outside examiners, or boards of examiners, including or not written examinations and practical work. The recognition by peers may be particularly appropriate for the type of skills (e.g. behavioural skills) which are more valued by employers to-day.
This preliminary review shows a variety of responses to the various problems occuring in the choice of a system of assessment and certification. It raises the issue of coherence between the different aspects and with the overall system of education and training on the one hand and with the labour market on the other. This can now be illustrated by three concrete examples.
Three European countries are representative of the most typical approaches of assessment and certification: France, Germany and England. But their actual situation has evolved and is not always to-day true to the original model, which illustrates some of the problems which each of these models may arise.
2.1 Predominance of State certification in a school-based system
The French approach is traditionally based on the following principles:
The initial model has been affected by the following trends:
2.2 The predominant role of social partners in assessment and certification of a dual training system
Germany has also a highly structured system of vocational training, in which the central role is played by the dual apprenticeship training, with the following characteristics:
Although this system is still highly appreciated, a few problems have emerged recently and it has been affected by the following trends:
2.3 The competency-based approach of assessment
England has initiated in the 80s a new approach of assessment of vocational quaifications which has been followed - with some differences - by several English-speaking countries and which has attracted a considerable amount of interest in many others. It therefore deserves particular attention.
At that time, there was no national system of education, training and certification in England. Vocational certificates were granted by a variety of independent bodies and there was a need for clarification and transparency. The level of qualification of the workforce was comparatively low and the training that it had received was criticized for not corresponding to the requirements of industry.
A new system: the "National Vocational Qualifications" (NVQs) was designed with a view to:
A new emphasis is put on the outcome of training, instead of the inputs (type and length of training, curricula, teachers). The results to be achieved are specified in details, so that everyone can understand the results to be achieved and the object of assessment.
A number of specialized bodies have been established in the various sectors of activity with a mjor role assigned to employers. They were asked to define skill standards and performance criteria to be achieved for different types of job. The standards are then translated into units of competency, in coordination with the bodies which have received accreditation for assessment. The units are approved by a National Council of Vocational Qualifications.
Training institutions (especially the Colleges of further education) determine themselves the contents of training which they consider appropriate to reach the level of competency required by the standards. It is assumed that using the standards will be sufficient to guarantee the quality of training programmes. State funding of these programmes is subject to the use of competency standards.
The structure of the system is modular and learners are free to organize their training by assembling modules in the way they want. Performance criteria are very detailed. But there is no reference to the level of knowledge of the learner. In other words, he/she only has to demonstrate his/her ability to perform a task or a set of tasks. There is no written examination.
NVQs do not refer to occupational classifications or salary levels. Since labour markets are increasingly de-regulated, in any case classifications tend to loose weight.
NVQs have been designed primarily for adults. But they have been introduced also as the objective to be achieved at the completion of one of the streams of initial (vocational) education. At a later stage, "General National Vocational Qualifications" (GNVQs) were designed primarily for the initial education of young people and now represent a second stream. Competencies are conceived in a broader way and do not refer to specific tasks but to a wider range of activities. They refer to basic technical knowledge and to types of behaviour required in the world of work, which are often common to various occupational areas and are identified as core skills.
GNVQs do not necessarily imply any work experience in enterprise. The preparation of GNVQs and NVQs vocational streams in initial education is based on modules and does not necessarily require general education subjects.
There has been a lot of controversies about NVQs and in other countries (e.g. Australia) which have followed a similar approach. Since this is a new development which attracts a lot of interest in other countries, it is interesting to take them into consideration. The most critical comments have been expressed by researchers and specialists in education. They refer either to the basic concepts and assumtions, or to the implementation.
First of all, some of them question the underlying concepts of functional sociology and behaviorist psychology ; they doubt whether the addition of fragmented competencies is sufficient to make an educational process ; they observe that the assessment concerns the result of an action, but not the ability to act and the cognitive elements of a skilled job. Standards refer to a single way of acting, which would leave no room for alternative ways and improvisation.
Several studies suggest that standards were - at least initially- defined at a low level by lead bodies: employers' representatives often tend to privilege narrow skills and short-term and informal training programmes.
There were also questions about assessment, which cannot be performed out of context and requires very specific recommendations. Since financcing is based on success at the assessment of NVQs/GNVQs, those who are in charge may be biased.
Finally, there is the question of whether such a centralized and rather rigid system of assessment is consistent with a policy of de-regulation and flexibility of the labour market.
Several evaluations of the programme have been undertaken. According to the most important one, a majority of employers are satisfied with the results in terms of performances and motivations. But some problems remain: it may be necessary to have a broader approach of the training requirements and not to limit them to immediate needs of a particular job ; it now appears that the acquisition of knowledge and understanding is necessary. More emphasis is now put on quality.
It would seem that the final success of the programme depends primarily on the employers' attitude: do they see the usefulness of promoting higher qualifications of their workforce leading to NVQs? What is their assessment of the corresponding costs and benefits?
Having reviewed the experience of the industrialised countries and the problems that have arisen in other countries, it is now necessary to attempt an evaluation of assessment and certification methods, and to see to what degree they are applicable in various contexts. But before moving on to a comparative evaluation, two questions deserve attention:
3.1 Labour market demand, its evolution and meaning in various contexts
The assessment and certification of occupational qualifications and competence must relate to the objectives set for the training process. These objectives are supposed to meet the labour market requirements not only in the present, but also in the medium term. This presupposes knowledge or assumptions of the structures and content of work, and how they are likely to evolve, but also how these data are to be interpreted and translated in terms of knowledge, expertise, competence and/or behaviour to be developed.
In other words, assessment must take into account diverse and changing realities; and the methods used must be sufficiently adapted to the circumstances prevailing in the various contexts. No universal solution exists, and an initial distinction must be made between the labour market in advanced industrial countries and other countries.
a) Recent trends in advanced industrial countries
In advanced industrial countries, recent trends are the result of a conjunction of a massive use of information technology, and international competitive pressures driving innovation, new product development, quality and service enhancements, lower costs, and constant restructuring. It is generally admitted that these trends have several effects:
These trends correspond to a new equilibrium between “quality, new product development and productivity on the one hand, and labour qualifications on the other. The quest for a new equilibrium is one of the prime objectives in implementing a new assessment and certification system. It is very likely that high-performing businesses involved in this kind of endeavour are motivated so as to have a qualified workforce.
However, if a general consensus exists on the significance of these trends in terms of labour requirements, their interpretation in terms of the kind of expertise that needs developing and the training objectives involved is somewhat open to debate.
According to one interpretation, rapid change in technology, products and the way work is organised; expectations in terms of mobility, versatility and group work; and the increasing role of technicians raise doubts about the traditional dichotomy between skilled and unskilled occupations, and even between blue collar and white collar workers. In this case, one wonders if the overall assessment of training leading to skilled jobs remains justified.
Taking a contrary approach, B. Lutz presented a heartfelt plea in favour of rediscovering the notion of “professionalism..” In his view, if the type of work has changed, and if skilled work is no longer understood only in terms of technical knowledge, all the same, professionalism remains an essential factor in any active competitive strategy. Alternate training is still the system which is best adapted to this profile, on condition that it strives to maintain a smoothly functioning professional labour market. However, we have seen this threatened today, even in countries like Germany where it has traditionally enjoyed a dominant position (OECDE, 1994 a).
According to recent observations in France, three profiles of qualified workers can be distinguished within the modern economy: those who have acquired sufficient theoretical knowledge through their training to master new technologies; those who have acquired multi-faceted skills on-the-job, which allow them to operate smoothly within a team; and those who above all need craft-like skills (Tanguy, 1992).
There is every likelihood that each of these profiles corresponds to different kinds of learning and accreditation. In the first case, the accent would be placed on theoretical knowledge; in the second, on adaptability and social skills; in the third, on the learning of more traditional skills.
Another element of debate concerns the difference between training for employment and training for “employability,” which are both aligned to the characteristics of the job market; with the professional market counting strongest, both domestically and abroad. To each kind of job market corresponds a method of training and assessment.
b) Central and eastern European countries
The economic crisis and privatisation have caused a profound transformation of the job market in these countries. As to their attitude towards work and training, during the present stage of transition, it is possible to discern four kinds of firms:
The countries of central and eastern Europe are certainly preoccupied with finding a balance involving quality/innovation/qualifications. However, only the future will show how far they succeed in doing so, or how much they should base their competitiveness on the relatively low cost of manpower. In the medium and long term, the demand for certification, and especially the assessment criteria to be used will depend on this.
3.2 Institutional data and the role of the “actors”
Here it is particularly necessary to assess the role of the various “actors” involved in the assessment and certification process, and delineate the geographical area for certification.
3.2.1 The role of “actors”
It should first of all be stressed that (contrary to what one would sometimes have a tendency to expect in countries where tradition attaches a large importance to state involvement), qualification is not automatic in a market economy. It results from market forces and the opinions of those concerned. If these “actors” within the labour market see no interest in setting up a system of assessment and certification, it will not develop of itself or have any impact.
This should not lead one to ignore the role of public authorities. According to H. Steedman, “Experience shows that without public involvement, neither individuals nor businesses will take the means necessary to attain a new balance of higher expertise/quality” (OECD, 1996 a). D. Colardyn on the other hand, in her comparative assessment of industrialised countries, observes a loss of the certification monopoly by Departments of Education. This authority “remains the guarantor of quality, but certification becomes the responsibility of a consortium of partners. This process, which is difficult at first, can then turn out to be of assistance for recognising competency in collective agreements” (Colardyn, 1996).
For the same writer, along with education authorities whose contribution is usually concentrated on quality control, other partners (professional associations, business, private training organisations) can make a contribution in terms of adaptability, access to the latest skills, or deeper knowledge of the business.
That is why, mutual validation is a sort of preamble to the more or less smooth functioning of the training market. [It] consists in a recognition of the reciprocal roles and contributions by the various partners¼which supposes easy access to information. For that, it is necessary to establish a principle of regular meetings among everyone involved” (Hall, ibid.).
This analysis leads D. Colardyn to wish that a Commission bringing all partners from the training market together could be established. It should offer the possibility of defining and implementing a strategy linking initial and continuous training, and extending formal training to the informal and commercial sectors.
This would allow continuity, and take into account the interests of the labour market through the presence of community partners (Colardyn, ibid.).
This solution is certainly desirable, but for the countries that are our major concern here, even more than in industrialised countries, the question revolves around representation and the existence even of organisations capable of speaking on behalf of employers and employees. Even the more so, since as we have seen earlier, the interests of each of the partners are not always the same. What can be done to encourage the setting up and reinforcing of structures concerned with social partnership? When these structures are practically absent, this is obviously a painstaking task.
Moreover, it is necessary to avoid the possible risk of an exceedingly narrow and short-term vision of their training needs by some employers. The active involvement of unions, who are more concerned with encouraging the individual upgrading of workers can make an important contribution (as in Germany, for example).
The link between competency-based standards and job classification raises complex problems. It is obvious that unions favour a close link, with repercussions on pay, but for the same reason, employers are against it, in that they wish to keep control over salaries, and seek to remunerate individuals on a one-to-one basis. The wish to combine in one framework a system of competency-based standards and job classification appears to be somewhat utopian, since it does not sufficiently take into account wider repercussions and concerns. The risk is of creating a rigid system which conflicts with employers’ wish for flexibility.
Whatever the case, the institutional framework for certification is obliged to take into account the particularities of the training system, the overall institutional context and the objectives targeted (certification which is a preparation for further studies or entry into the job market, or both). Case studies show that some countries aim at a system which can meet both objectives, while others accept a complete dichotomy. This is a difficult choice, for it calls into question the very foundations of education and training.
For all countries striving to create or revamp a system of assessment and certification, the following questions need to be addressed:
3.2.2. The geographical aspect of certification
The customary framework of certification is a national one. One wonders about the usefulness of certification at the regional and enterprise level. On one hand, one could argue that very few skills are specific to any region, and that there is thus a risk of limiting the mobility of the workforce. On the other hand, this could be a means of being more attentive to business expectations. Concerning this, the French experience with local supplementary training initiatives seems positive.
Looking forward to the future, the question can be raised as to whether the problem of assessment and certification is not destined to abandon the strict limits of national boundaries. The example of the creation of the European Union has often been cited, and one need not evoke it again in this study. However, one can try to imagine the results of the concurrence of three major trends which are currently operative in three areas:
By opening infinite possibilities for accessing information, Internet has considerably enlarged the perspectives of distance learning, and can in the long run become a serious competitor for established training institutions. Competency-based standards which call for freedom from institutional training framework (place and length of studies) can find new arguments in this fact.
At the same time, this evolution can also contribute to weakening national boundaries. The main obstacle encountered by attempts to find a common definition of diploma equivalence in Europe comes from the particularity of the national education systems that a person has to go through in order to obtain one. However, from the moment that the means of gaining knowledge widens infinitely and frees itself from national institutions, the importance of the latter is likely to decline.
One wonders if these technological breakthroughs, combined with economic pressures towards globalization will not end by raising serious doubts about national qualification and certification systems altogether.
We can compare possible trends towards globalization of qualifications and training with those that are already operating in the economy, and quote A. Vinokur, who believes that “the normalisation of the training product can allow the implementation of Taylor-like procedures rationalising knowledge, which is in any case a necessary step for the individualisation of education and the opening of opportunity sufficiently large for the information industries in this sector. (Vinokur, 1995). The same author quotes an article from the Harvard Business Review, according to which Industries which have a teaching component¼will obviously prefer not to teach in a school environment. [They] will be tempted to sell education – courses, exams, ‘certificates of mastery’ validated by the schools and employers – directly to employers” (ibid.).
3.3 A preliminary assessment: the pertinence and feasibility of the various approaches
The close consideration of the above analyses should allow the drawing up of a comparative evaluation of advantages, limits and problems accruing to the implementation of three kinds of approaches. Discussion will focus particularly on the model for competency-based standards initially tested in England, since many countries still see in it an overall response to the problems that assessment and certification present.
3.3.1 Competency-based standards
The attractiveness of this approach is especially linked to two reasons:
from the new realities of a market economy. The approach founded on competency-based standards is supposed to answer these needs in the most direct and concrete way.
The transplantation of this model raises at least four questions: Are its principles sound? Does it best respond to the needs of the labour market? How does it fit into the education system? Under what conditions can it be set up in the various contexts?
a) We mentioned in the first part, the reservations this procedure gave rise to in England: standards that were fragmentary, restrictive and often too low; an insufficient awareness of educational concerns; difficulties and lack of objectivity in the assessment process. These criticisms apply mainly to the methods adopted in England. They are less relevant to the way the model was applied in Australia and New Zealand.
As for the concept, itself, one is tempted to quote the reservations of those who take a critical view of a behaviourist approach which seeks to scientifically determine in purely technical terms all the elements of qualification (Alaluf and Stoobants, 1994), or who feel that competence cannot be isolated in the abstract, but must take into account the whole individual (Fragnière, in OCDE 1996 a).
One could also mention an Australian university professor, according to whom the entire procedure smacks of ideological inspiration. For her, the version imported to Australia is “clearly Thatcherite in its origins and approach,” even though this import is being applied by a labour government. “The ideological appropriation of the overall reform process replaces public aims and the social vision of educational institutions by a logic aimed at the private creation of wealth. The result of this is a major shift in the location and way that these institutions are controlled and managed, and by whom.” (Jackson, in Collins, 1993).
This viewpoint shares similarities with the analysis of A. Vinoku, already mentioned, concerning globalization. She considers that “control by competency-based standards eliminates ‘useless’ knowledge from the point of view of the seeker, and imposes content on teachers.” She sees a new control mechanism developing downstream in the education system, which marks the end of its autonomy, and is characterised by the separation of production and the certification of knowledge. The producers of education services tend to be placed in a competitive situation for the provision of expertise at the lowest cost. The reference model now becomes industrial certification (Vinokur, 1995).
b) Links with the educational system
However, one remarks that this kind of interpretation arises in a situation where the overall education system is inspired by an approach based on competency-based standards. Everything in fact depends on the way this approach is fitted into the education and training system. The objectives concerning pedagogical methods, and especially the fact that the accumulation of fragmentary skills does not necessarily constitute overall training have much greater weight:
On the contrary, an approach based on competency-based standards is likely to raise fewer objections:
c) Meeting the demands of the labour market
Concerning the response to the evolution of work and qualifications, changes which have just been mentioned can be interpreted in various ways. Thus, the fact of overemphasising the traditional dichotomy between occupations, and on the necessity of adaptation with mobility in mind can also lead one to:
As well, the emphasis on competency does not necessarily lead to an assessment of proficiency in the sense of NVQs. If we bear in mind the definition of G. Le Boterf, who sees in competency the “actualisation of what one knows in a special context (marked by working relations, administrative culture, fluctuations, time constraints, resources)” (G. Le Boterf, 1994), in this case, evaluation can only with difficulty be restricted to the checking of strict pre-established standards, and implies the taking into account of the context according to changing circumstances.
It rather deals with a carefully controlled overall evaluation within the context of periodic training, which was already indicated in an OECD symposium on the evaluation of “non-objective knowledge” (OECD, 1994).
Contrasting a global model with a modularised model for certification, M. Durand-Drouhin definitively asserts that “the choice between one or the other ways of reasoning depends a lot on how the work is organised. If no labour market exists which is organised into professions which can be qualified by "global" diplomas, what is the solution? The alternative does not necessarily consist in modularising professional training and certification, but in providing general education. If it is possible to identify coherent areas of qualifications and specific skills, one can at least define coherent groups of basic qualifications and skills.” (Durand-Drouhin, 1995).
d) Feasibility
The questions of feasibility arise more urgently for central and eastern European countries. The following questions can be raised:
- First of all, one must not underestimate the considerable investment required for a reassessment of skills and a definition of competency-based standards. What are the means that the countries concerned possess to successfully carry out an operation which mobilised considerable resources in the United Kingdom for several years, and then to periodically update the data gathered?
If these means do not exist, the easy solution consists in purely and simply adopting competency-based standards developed abroad. But this raises the pertinent question, noted earlier, concerning the conformity of the labour market to local conditions.
Generally speaking, there is no way of avoiding the question of how to formulate a description of competency which can be applied universally. European attempts to establish qualification equivalence has already run into difficulty, even for neighbouring countries (Bertrand, in OECD 1996 a). Would it not be even more difficult to compare socio-economic systems that are fundamentally different? At the most, would it not be best to use foreign models to provide an initial point of reference that would need later validation at the national level at some cost.
Can employers and their representatives be expected to predict future developments? Experience shows that one can expect the most visionary among them to be sensitive to future trends, but it appears difficult to draw up in detail and in concrete terms the skills which are not even yet visible on the horizon.
These reservations and queries must not bring into doubt the interest of an assessment concentrating more on training objectives and results, as opposed to traditional approaches based uniquely on the means and on the transmission of knowledge.
3.3.2 The traditional model of state diplomas
An appraisal of the two other approaches can be resumed far more rapidly.
Concerning the approach based on a state monopoly in dispensing diplomas which sanctions training within a predominantly academic nature, one that is widely followed in France:
We have seen that in the case of France, a certain change has taken place which is moving it away from the initial model, incorporating other models which make the overall picture less easy to distinguish. Co-operation among employers, the definition of training objectives based on wide, professional systems of reference, and a certain modularity have allowed the inconveniences which have just been already mentioned to be partially remedied.
One could even maintain that, contrary to widespread opinion, it is possible that, in some cases at least, training planners are better placed to foresee future labour market development than employers. This is how some professional diplomas in France were conceived, with the intention not only of anticipating future technological development, but also to make of the new diploma “a catalyst in the transformation of work. Work was in some ways called on to adjust to the change in professional training, which it did only partially” (Verdier, 1995)
In this case, however, even if the role of training planners is predominant, co-operation with employers remains essential for them to be sensitive to the perspectives of the evolving labour market. And it was not sufficient to guarantee the recognition (equivalence) of diplomas.
However, cases exist where a separate training system has been set up intended for the private sector, with specific certificates. In this case, there is a risk of excessive compartmentalisation, with qualification awarded by the educational system, or even by
different professional training systems. It is far from certain that the existence of a distinct system of certification awarded by various departments guarantees the involvement of employers and their recognition of the certificates.
All the same, it is evidently more difficult to meet the specific needs of the traditional and “informal” sectors with a tradition of state diplomas sanctioning academic training than according to other methods.
3.3.3. Assessment and certification sanctioning a dual-type training
The advantages and inconveniences of dual training appear in inverse proportion to the preceding model: a solid guarantee of recognition (equivalence) on the job market goes without saying; however, a problem arises when certification based on job-acquired skills is required for a continuation of studies. In this principle, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, especially in the pedagogical sense, which justifies the interest that many countries show in the German experience. Arguments in its favour can also be found both in advanced industrial economies which emphasise relational talents and integration in the corporation, and equally with less developed economies, and with qualifications related to arts and crafts.
The problem that arises concerns the conditions of applicability and transferability of the model within the various contexts. We have noted that if the principle was not being currently challenged in the country of origin, it was starting to lose ground; and the conditions for its success were not well-positioned today (erosion of the professional labour market, competition from extended education programs).
It is essential to emphasise here that the problem raised by the burden and slowness of the co-operative process among social partners, although it has been resolved smoothly in the highly favourable German context, runs the risk of creating a quagmire in other less favourable contexts.
According to Boehm (in Husen, Postlethwaite, 1994), one rarely finds the specific conditions present in Germany in developing countries: i.e. an extended learning period before specialised training, a strong commitment from business whose economic situation is sufficiently solid to allow them to underwrite the cost of training, and a restrictive policy concerning professional full-time training. He regrets that the German experts have a tendency to consider that the system can only operate at an advanced stage of industrialisation, and do not try harder to adapt it to other contexts.
The question of whether the dual traininbg system should necessarily be associated with a global assessment of a specific occupation would deserve further discussion. There has been some relaxing of this relationship in Germany. In a different context, it should be possible to move further away from the original model. But in any case the dual training system is more consistent with an overall assessment of an occupation than with a modular approach of fragmented skills.
Boehm also remarks that once a public vocational training is implemented, employers do not see why they should invest in training. They are satisfied with criticising the authorities if this training is not of sufficient quality. Moreover, the co-ordination between Departments of Education (for the academic side of training) and the Departments of Labour (for practical experience) may be harder to achieve outside of Germany.
Partial transplantation of the model can conserve at least a portion of the advantages of alternate training at the pedagogical level. However if the system is not in full control; and above all, if it does not include the full commitment of employers, one can doubt whether its advantages are maintained as to the value accorded to assessment and certification in the German system.