Practical training in secondary vocational education

• Conclusions
• Points for consideration
• Response to the audit

The Court of Audit investigated work placements and other forms of practical training in secondary vocational education in the Netherlands between the end of 2005 and mid-2007. In these compulsory placements, pupils can work in the vocation they are learning. The main reasons for the audit were, on the one hand, the signals received in 2004 and 2005 that there were not enough training places for secondary vocational pupils and, on the other, the great importance of practical training in every vocational course.

Conclusions

Our main conclusion is that arrangement of the training places is not sufficiently binding to get the best results. Good results stand or fall on cooperation between those involved. Our audit found that in the current system the parties involved did not always work together and when they did the cooperation was not as effective as it could be. We have worked our main conclusion out into a series of secondary conclusions in the report. We have several criticisms of the acts (and omissions) of the main parties involved in practical training but their acts and omissions are understandable in the light of our main conclusion: the arrangements are not sufficiently binding to get the best results. If the parties are not asked clearly to "act" it is understandable that certain things will not get done, particularly if the parties concerned already have enough to do.

Points for consideration

In the report we outline the impressions we gained from our audit of how training places work in practice. For the system as a whole to perform well, the parties concerned must work together well. Our audit found that cooperation is currently not axiomatic. We developed a number of tools for the audit to analyse how training places work. We would be pleased to provide them to the parties concerned so that they can use them to keep a finger on the pulse.

Response to the audit

The State Secretary for Education, Culture and Science thought our audit was important because vocational education was important. She noted that the audit considered 'formal' vocational education and not all forms of vocational learning or short-term placements. The state secretary thought our report did not give cause for sweeping changes in the tasks and responsibilities of those concerned although there was some uncertainty in day-to-day practice about the allocation of responsibilities. The state secretary would like to make agreements on a number of matters and set them out in the administrative accord she will conclude with the Secondary Vocational Education Council and Colo, the Association of Centres of Expertise on Vocational Education, Training and the Labour Market, at the beginning of 2008. Those matters would in any event relate to the quality of the guidance provided to pupils and the quality of the support provided by training companies. The Council wrote in its response that its members recognised the problems regarding guidance and communication and that the sector had already actively addressed them. It felt that our report overlooked recent changes in the context of secondary vocational education: competence-based education centring on practical learning. Colo and the centres of expertise thought our conclusions and recommendations would help improve the standard of practical training. The centres of expertise agreed with our opinion that the arrangement of training places was not sufficiently binding to get the best results. Zadkine Regional Education Centre thought our report provided a clear description of the situation but it struggled in practice with the regular changes in the government's expectations: the government expected the regional education centres to bear their responsibilities and work with the companies concerned but also wanted to take charge itself.