socialpartners in education and training: from …...republic of macedonia on 1–2 december 2008,...

Copyright

photo

:U

rbanM

echanic

SOCIAL PARTNERS IN EDUCATION

AND TRAINING: FROM POLICY

DEVELOPMENT TO IMPLEMENTATION

TA

-80-0

9-1

22-E

N-C

THE EUROPEAN TRAINING FOUNDATION (ETF)HELPS TRANSITION AND DEVELOPING COUNTRIESTO HARNESS THE POTENTIAL OF THEIR HUMANRESOURCES THROUGH THE REFORM OF EDUCATION,TRAINING AND LABOUR MARKET SYSTEMS IN THECONTEXT OF THE EU’S EXTERNAL RELATIONS POLICY

HOW TO CONTACT US

Further information on our activities, calls fortender and job opportunities can be found onour web site: www.etf.europa.eu

For any additional information please contact:

ETF Communication UnitEuropean Training FoundationVilla GualinoViale Settimio Severo 65I – 10133 TorinoT +39 011 630 2222F +39 011 630 2200E [email protected]

SOCIAL PARTNERS INEDUCATION AND TRAINING:FROM POLICY DEVELOPMENTTO IMPLEMENTATION

REFLECTIONS ON THE ETF 2008POLICY LEARNING EXERCISE INCROATIA, THE FORMER YUGOSLAVREPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA, SERBIAAND TURKEY

David Parkes, Arjen Vos and Margareta Nikolovska

European Training Foundation

2009

More information on the European Unionis available on the Internet(http://europa.eu).

Cataloguing data can be found at the end ofthis publication.

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications ofthe European Communities, 2009.

ISBN: 978-92-9157-585-5

doi: 10.2816/12889

© European Training Foundation, 2009.

Reproduction is authorised provided the sourceis acknowledged.

Printed in Italy

Europe Direct is a service to help youfind answers to your questions

about the European Union

Freephone number (*):

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allowaccess to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.

PREFACE

THE 2008 PEER LEARNINGPROJECT

Social partners are key players in thedevelopment of vocational education andtraining (VET), and this view is widelysupported in the EU and its MemberStates. However, involving them is easiersaid than done. The transition economiesof South Eastern Europe are only slowlyrecovering; most companies are fragile andhave mainly short-term visions andperspectives. Since investment ineducation and training is focused onlonger-term results, companies and thesocial partners do not see it as a highpriority. How can the general idea ofpromoting social partnership in SouthEastern Europe be given shape, andshould social partners be involved in allparts of the policy design and policydevelopment processes?

Between 2002 and 2005 the ETF launchedthe peer review programme for SouthEastern Europe. Its main aim was toprovide policy recommendations to nationalpolicymakers. In addition, it attempted tocontribute to capacity building and regionalnetworking. From 2006 to 2008 the ETFmoved the focus from peer review to peerlearning. The main objective was tocontribute to the capacity building ofnational stakeholders through in-depthanalysis and comparisons of education andtraining systems and policies in differentcountries.

In 2006 the peer learning projectconcentrated on the financing of VET inAlbania, Kosovo1 and Montenegro. Fourpeer policymakers and four peer VETexperts from Albania, the former YugoslavRepublic of Macedonia, Kosovo andMontenegro gained, through interviews and

discussions with national stakeholders andamong peers, a deeper understanding ofthe differences in the financing of VET inAlbania, Kosovo and Montenegro, but alsoof the similarities in the problems facedand, also in a few cases, in the chosenpolicy options.

In 2007 the project focused on the impactof VET policies on schools and schoolmanagement in Albania, Kosovo andTurkey. One policymaker, one schooldirector from a donor-supported pilotschool and one school director from anon-pilot school identified, among otherissues, the need for early consultation withstakeholders in policy development in orderto reduce the gap between policydevelopment and policy implementation.

In 2008 one policymaker, onerepresentative of employers’ organisationsand one of trade unions in Croatia, theformer Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,Serbia and Turkey participated as peers.The topic was to better understand thepolicies and practices relating to theinvolvement of social partners in educationand training with a focus on the tourismand construction sectors. A coordinatorwas appointed for these countries tocoordinate the self-study and thepreparations for the peer visits.

The authors of this report have concludedthat social dialogue on education andtraining is taking place in all countries atnational level, but is for the most partabsent in negotiations of collectiveagreements. Croatia and Turkey aredeveloping initiatives to strengthen tripartitediscussions at the level of economicsectors. In most countries social partnershave been involved in the educationprocess, particularly in developing

3

1 As under UNSCR 1244.

occupational standards and assessing newcurricula. Only in Serbia are employersparticipating more systematically inexamination committees. Partnershipsbetween schools and local enterprisesexist and have in many cases outlived thetransition process. These partnerships arestrongly focused on the provision ofpractical training. It will be a challenge toextend the areas of cooperation.Governments should actively support suchcooperation. A critical issue is the humanand financial resources available forinvolving social partners in the differentphases of the education and trainingprocess. It is unrealistic to expect thatsocial partners will be able to participate inall phases. Capacity building for socialpartner organisations is crucial. It is equallyimportant for social partners to explicitlyprioritise their involvement and concentrateon areas in which their participation will bemost effective and efficient.

This report elaborates the rich experience ofthe team involved in the ETF 2008 peerlearning exercise. The ETF peer learninginstrument has proved to be a very powerfullearning tool for all the peers involved.Comparing success stories, failures andmistakes, and sharing experiences hashelped them to better comprehend the localcontexts in which reforms are taking placeand the reasons why policy initiatives seemto work better under certain circumstances.It has led to more questions than answers,though these questions can help the peersto deal with daily problems. It was thereforeconsidered very important to share thislearning with a much broader group ofinterested people in the education field.This was accomplished during a regionalconference in Ohrid in the former YugoslavRepublic of Macedonia on 1–2 December2008, an event that involved some60 policymakers and social partnerrepresentatives from across the region. Thisreport, which heavily reflects the very richdiscussions of the peers over ten days inCroatia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMacedonia, Serbia and Turkey, should alsobe considered as an instrument forknowledge sharing.

In order to address the criticism2 that thepeer learning project only had a one-yearlife cycle, and an uncertain follow-up andimpact on the policies in the countries, ithas been decided to integrate peerlearning actions into a new mutual learningproject to run from 2009 to 2011. With athree-year commitment and focus on adultlearning, quality and post-secondary VET,it is hoped that better links can be forgedbetween peer learning and both policyprocesses and the investments ofinternational donors.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are grateful to Niels Kristensen forhelping to kickstart the project by preparingthe initial thematic concept paper. We areequally grateful to David Parkes forstepping in at a late stage and forcoordinating the drafting of this report onthe findings of the peers. The whole teamwas led by two ETF staff members.

The 2008 peer team consisted of:

� Nada Bakula – Trade Union ofConstruction Industry, Croatia

� Ana Buljan – Deputy Director of theAgency for Vocational Education andTraining, Croatia

� Damir Crleni – President of the CroatianCulinary Federation, Croatia

� Nenad Vakanjac – Consultant, NationalCoordinator, Croatia

� Violeta Grujevska – Director of VETCentre, former Yugoslav Republic ofMacedonia

� Elizabeta Jovanovska-Radovanik –Adviser, VET Centre, former YugoslavRepublic of Macedonia

� Filip Majevski – Head of MarketingDepartment, Metropole Lake Resort,Ohrid, former Yugoslav Republic ofMacedonia

� Pavel Trendafilov – President of theConstruction Trade Union SGIP, formerYugoslav Republic of Macedonia

� Vesna Janevska – VET Consultant,National Coordinator, former YugoslavRepublic of Macedonia

4

SOCIAL PARTNERS IN EDUCATION AND TRAINING: FROM POLICY DEVELOPMENTTO IMPLEMENTATION

2 See the article in ETF Yearbook 2008, ‘ETF peer learning: from policy learning to policy change in partnercountries’, by Margareta Nikolovska and Arjen Vos, where the peer learning experience from 2006 and 2007was evaluated.

� Silva Misjlenovic – Adviser and HRDCoordinator, Ministry of Education andSports, Serbia

� Zoran Pualic – Adviser, SerbianAssociation of Employers, Serbia

� Iskra Maksimovic – Assistant Professor,Faculty of Economics, Finance andAdministration, National Coordinator,Serbia

� Ibrahim Demirer – Director ofEducational Research and Development,Ministry of National Education, Turkey

� Suheyla Aslan – Project Coordinator,Turkish Employers’ Association ofConstruction Industries INTES, Turkey

� Sevil Erdinc – Managing Director ofTURSAB Istanbul Anatolian PrivateVocational High School for HotelManagement and Tourism, Turkey

� Ozlem Kalkan – Expert, DG ForeignRelations, Ministry of NationalEducation, National Coordinator, Turkey

� Niels Kristensen – Consultant,Denmark, EU Expert

� David Parkes – Consultant, UK/France,EU Expert

� Margareta Nikolovska – Project TeamMember and Country Manager forAlbania, ETF

� Arjen Vos – Project Team Leader andCountry Manager for Turkey, ETF.

We would like to thank our colleaguesFrancesco Panzica, Country Manager forSerbia, and Evelyn Viertel, CountryManager for the former Yugoslav Republicof Macedonia, for their stimulatingparticipation in the peer visits in theirrespective countries.

We are grateful to all the individuals weinterviewed during our peer visits toCroatia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMacedonia, Serbia and Turkey for theirpatience in answering our questions andfor providing us with much food forthought. The project was generouslysupported by our colleague SamCavanagh.

We would like to thank the whole team fortaking part in intensive discussions,conducted in a very open, friendly andprofessional way. These discussions werea very rich learning experience for us all.

Arjen Vos

and Margareta Nikolovska, ETF

5

PREFACE

CONTENTS

PREFACE 3

The 2008 peer learning project 3

Acknowledgements 4

1. INTRODUCTION: PEER LEARNING IN 2008 AS PART OF THE ETF POLICY

LEARNING AGENDA IN SOUTH EASTERN EUROPE 9

2. RATIONALE: POLICY PROCESS AND PRACTICE 13

3. SOCIAL PARTNERSHIP IN SOUTH EASTERN EUROPE:

A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE ISSUES 15

4. PERCEIVED BENEFITS OF SOCIAL PARTNER DIALOGUE AND STRUCTURES

THAT PARTICULARLY CONCERN VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING:

THE CHALLENGE 17

5. CONTEXT: THE FRAMEWORK OF SOCIAL PARTNERSHIP IN TOURISM AND

CONSTRUCTION 19

6. THE LOCAL LEVEL: THE BOTTOM-UP PERSPECTIVE OF SOCIAL PARTNERSHIP

AND THE ROLE OF VOCATIONAL SCHOOLS AND TRAINING CENTRES 21

7. OLD AND NEW CONCEPTS OF SOCIAL PARTNERSHIP: SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN 23

8. LEGISLATION AND FINANCING: SOCIAL PARTNERSHIP BASED ON

SHARING RESOURCES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 25

9. COORDINATION, STRUCTURES AND INSTITUTIONS: THE FRAMEWORK

FOR POLICY IMPLEMENTATION 27

10. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: TOP-DOWN AND BOTTOM-UP

PERSPECTIVES 29

10.1 Conclusions: Top-down and bottom-up perspectives 30

10.2 Good practice: Ideas and innovative solutions that work 32

10.3 Recommendations: Top-down and bottom-up perspectives 32

11. POLICY LEARNING TO FACILITATE EDUCATIONAL CHANGE WITH SOCIAL

PARTNERS: THE ROLE OF THE GOVERNMENT 37

ANNEXES 39

Annex 1: Croatia 39

Annex 2: The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 42

Annex 3: Serbia 46

Annex 4: Turkey 50

ACRONYMS 55

BIBLIOGRAPHY 57

7

1. INTRODUCTION: PEERLEARNING IN 2008 AS PARTOF THE ETF POLICYLEARNING AGENDA INSOUTH EASTERN EUROPE

The role of the ETF in the reform processin South Eastern Europe is to facilitatepolicy learning by making availableexpertise, information and experience ofpolicies and practice in education andtraining through participatory processes ofstakeholder interaction. To this end theETF applies the principle of policy learningin countries through the involvement ofpolicymakers and senior officials from thesector as peers in order to create theconditions for better targeted capacitybuilding (ETF, 2008).

One of the tools used by the ETF for policylearning is peer learning, which isorganised as a regional activity in SouthEastern Europe and covers the candidatecountries and potential candidatecountries. In 2008 the ETF’s peer learningproject was organised around the broadertopic of the ‘Involvement of Social Partnersin Education and Training’. This involved

peers from the four countries – Croatia, theformer Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,Serbia and Turkey – with the aim ofdeveloping an understanding of theinvolvement of social partners in VET, witha focus on the construction and tourismsectors.

Why has peer learning been chosen as apolicy learning instrument for the topic ofsocial partner involvement in education andtraining? In Croatia, the former YugoslavRepublic of Macedonia, Serbia and Turkeythe roles and contributions of socialpartners in the education and trainingsystem vary substantially. Many differentapproaches have been identified. Themodes of cooperation and the ways ofresolving challenges are the result of thedifferent traditions and cultures in eachcountry, and reflect to a great extent thedifferences in the organisation of thenational education and training systems.

9

1

In such a situation the peer learning toolprovides ample opportunity for countriesand individuals to learn from one another,and is a useful instrument for assistingstakeholders to work for and achievesustainable change in their education andVET systems. The following sets of issueshave been used to classify the findings ofthe ETF 2008 peer learning exercise.

A. Social dialogue: What are the mainissues for dialogue betweengovernment and social partners ineducation and training? Which aretopics of common interest, and whichare conflicting interests? What is theright balance of social dialogue atnational, regional, local and (economic)sector levels?

B. Education and training practice: Arethere examples of good practice insocial partner involvement in specificareas, such as labour market needsassessment, qualification development,curriculum development, practicaltraining, quality assurance, andexamination/certification? What advicecan be given to policymakers,employers’ organisations and tradeunions on realistic strategies forincreasing their involvement at differentlevels?

C. School–enterprise relations: Whatare the areas of common interest, andwhat examples are there of goodpractice?

It is important to note that the concept ofpolicy learning has been used within theframework of the challenges faced bypolicymakers and other key stakeholders inVET reform. These stakeholders areincreasingly looking beyond their bordersseeking information, examples of goodpractice and policy or peer advice in orderto launch, develop or implement newpolicies in the national context. One way ofdeveloping awareness of the importance ofkey issues in education and training is toenable policymakers to meet, talk with andhear from people who are or have beeninvolved in developing strategies for orimplementing these policy issues.

In addressing these issues the approachhas been one of policy learning based onthe ETF peer learning methodology3.

In summary, the ETF peer learningmethodology is based on the followingprocess.

� A common issue for policy learning isidentified in cooperation with thecountries involved. In this case theissue of common interest was theinvolvement of social partners ineducation and training.

� Country background papers areprepared by the participants in the formof a ‘self-study’ document.

� Two concept papers are elaborated onthe selected topic for peer learning, oneon the concept and topic (Peer Learning

to support the VET Reform Process

2008, Thematic Concept Paper, NielsKristensen), and the second on therationale and methodology of peerlearning (Peer Learning 2008: Guide for

Preparation, ETF).� Peer learning events are organised in

the participating countries.� Dissemination activities are organised in

various forms, including articles, countryworkshops and regional conferences.

The ETF 2008 peer learning exercise onthe involvement of social partners ineducation and training was a tool forengaging stakeholders in policy learningand for reinforcing stakeholders’ capacityto develop and implement systemiceducation and training reform policiesrather than pilot projects. As such, itproved to be a suitable and flexibleinstrument that recognised that policylearning may be more effective thanpolicy recommendations in report form, insituations where the objective is tostrengthen the capacity of policymakersand VET experts to develop andimplement policies. This document, whichis the cross-country synthesis report ofthe current state of affairs and thefindings of the peer learning exercise, isa result of this comprehensivemethodology.

10


3 For further information on the ETF peer learning methodology see Nikolovska and Vos (2008).

The cross-country report is organised intosections dealing with the following issues:

� what is meant by social partnership andwhat its intended benefits are;

� the importance of international andnational contexts;

� the labour market context;� the local level;� policies and strategies as defined by

legislation, finance and institutionalstructures as well as the location ofdecision making and management ofchange.

Sections 1–11 provide the introduction, ashort summary, the core text andconclusions and recommendations. Theannexes contain a case study of each ofthe countries that took part in this peerlearning exercise.

Moreover, social dialogue, education andtraining practice, and school–enterpriserelations are cross-cutting issues for thisreport. Reference is also made to thelabour market context and to issues ofeducation and training practice, while thelocal context is covered in the section onschool–enterprise relations.

The section entitled ‘Policy learning tofacilitate educational change with socialpartners: The role of the government’ is asymbolic section. Reviewing policyimplementation and trying to exploreacross four countries the extent to whichpolicy learning can support organisationalchange – in this case in the educationsector – would be a year’s dedicated

project on its own. This short section,therefore, flags up the issue rather thanattempting to resolve it.

The influence of each country’s situationand of the peers themselves (representingthe social partners in tourism andconstruction and a policy influencer fromeach country) is a clear thread runningthrough this report.

Good practice is illustrated throughout thetext, though most of the examples arepresented in the country case studies inthe annexes. The exploration of policy,strategic implementation and actualpractice through the peer learning processsuggests that the problems and dilemmasfaced stem mainly from policy and strategy(top-down) rather than from practice(bottom-up). This factor influences theconclusions and recommendations.Furthermore, some conclusions mightappear to be rather general. They areincluded because policy implementationhas not adequately followed policy design.Many issues at policy level are still morerhetoric than real action.

This document will hopefully help toilluminate the issues as well as beingevidence of the insights and reflections ofthe peers. As the final outcome of the ETF2008 peer learning process, it should alsobe seen as a possible tool for supportingthe capacity of stakeholders to formulateand implement systemic education reformpolicies, where the added value is theparticipation of social partners in the reformagenda of each country.

11

1. INTRODUCTION: PEER LEARNING IN 2008 AS PART OF THE ETF POLICYLEARNING AGENDA IN SOUTH EASTERN EUROPE

2. RATIONALE: POLICYPROCESS AND PRACTICE

The long-term project objective for the ETFis to support the quality of policy designand implementation by facilitating policylearning and peer learning by keystakeholders in the education and trainingreform processes in South Eastern Europe.Intensive and structured discussionsamong policymakers, experts andpractitioners, comparative analysis, and thesharing of knowledge, experience andexamples of good practice are the powerfultools of policy learning.

The ETF’s role in reform in South EasternEurope is to facilitate policy learning bymaking instruments and resourcesavailable for education and training, and byassisting and guiding the participation andinteraction of stakeholders. ETF peerlearning is based on the principle of alearning platform carefully created andfacilitated around major policy issues ofconcern to participating countries. Theinvolvement of policymakers and VETexperts and practitioners as peers createsthe conditions for better targeted capacitybuilding regarding existing policies andpolicy outcomes.

Peer learning can be used with differentstakeholders as long as they have similarfunctions and experience. The primaryobjectives for the 2008 project were:

� to engage policymakers and socialpartners in a policy learning activity,with shared knowledge and analysis ofsector dialogues and companies’involvement in training (particularly inthe tourism and construction sectors) inCroatia, the former Yugoslav Republicof Macedonia, Serbia and Turkey;

� to contribute to improved policy and EUproject design and implementation bydrawing lessons from the 2008 peerlearning exercise;

� to promote improved stakeholderdiscussions in sector dialogues andcompanies’ involvement in training,again using the tourism andconstruction sectors in the participatingcountries to illustrate the generalpicture; these sectors have beenselected because they are key for allfour economies and are relatively openand vulnerable to internationalcompetition.

13

2

In this context the ETF 2008 initiativeshould be seen as a process that enablesthe policymakers and social partners of thepeer learning team:

� to participate in a policy learningexercise through interaction with keystakeholders in the host country, andwithin the peer learning team itself;

� to gain an understanding of the hostcountry’s policy problems with regard tothe involvement of social partners inVET and qualification development, andto appreciate how this relates to thepolicy problems in their own country;

� to exchange opinions and obtain directfeedback from the experience of othersin relation to the links between sectordialogue and companies’ involvement intraining, and education and trainingpolicy;

� to reflect on the potential relevance ofthe policy/programme/problemelaborated in the ‘self-study’ document.

The most important stage of the exercisewas the selection of the policy issue: in thecase of 2008 it was the involvement ofsocial partners in education and training.The choice of policy issue is vital for linkingpeer learning to policy discussions in thedifferent countries and for stimulating theinterest of the peers representing socialpartners and of policymakers from theeducation ministries. The commondenominator is the rationale of ‘appraisal’that is firmly embedded in practice. This ishow the ETF peer learning methodologyapproaches the practical aspect of thepolicy process, observed through the lensof a problem which is very relevant to thepolicy agenda.

14


3. SOCIAL PARTNERSHIP INSOUTH EASTERN EUROPE:A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THEISSUES

Social dialogue and consultation are keyelements of the European model of society.The Treaty of the European Union4

recognises this by giving the EuropeanCommission the task of promoting socialdialogue, and provides for consultation ofthe European social partners on any socialinitiative. Social partnership is seen as aninstitutionalised instrument for bettergovernance and the promotion of socialand economic reforms.

The role played by social partnership isalso associated with democratic, social andeconomic progress. Employers, employeesand government authorities generally viewsocial dialogue as a tool for decisionmaking and conflict resolution that cansecure stable development benefiting allparties who have a justified stake in societyand the economy.

As a consequence, the concept of socialpartnership is embedded in the legislation

of both the European Community andindividual EU Member States. In principle,it ensures that employers’ and employees’organisations (and perhaps localgovernment) participate alongside centralgovernment to determine key economicand social policies and pursue theirstrategic implementation.

All four of the countries that took part in theETF 2008 peer learning exercise – Croatia,the former Yugoslav Republic ofMacedonia, Serbia and Turkey – are stilltrying to move towards fully open societies,with governments who are making effortsto gradually shift from a bureaucratic andauthority-based system to a moretransparent and inclusive approach todecision-making processes. This gradualshift has concomitant implications for socialpartner involvement in various aspects ofsociety, including education and trainingpolicies.

15

3

4 Treaty on European Union, Articles 138 and 139 (ex 118a and 118b).

Political turbulence and changes ofgovernment and legislation have led,particularly in the Western Balkancountries, to a lack of systemic planningand a lack of sustainability in terms of theinitiatives taken. At government level,including social partnership,inter-ministerial cooperation requiresconsiderable reinforcement.

Social partners are suffering from relativelylow membership rates, a situation that callsinto question their representativeness.Their organisation at local or sector level isoften weak. Social partnership tends to befocused on bipartite and tripartitearrangements. Moreover, just asglobalisation and financial crises will havetheir impact on the two sectors chosen forthe peer learning exercise – constructionand tourism – so too will they have animpact on the notion of social partnershipin terms of extending the range of partnersto be consulted (for example to localgovernment and NGOs). The social partnerorganisations (for VET) require greatercommitment, a sharper focus on the keyissues, considerable capacity building andthe financial means in order to participatefully.

Institutional mechanisms (such aseconomic councils, VET councils,occupational sector councils, nationalqualification frameworks, and VETagencies and centres) do have socialpartner involvement, and are evolving,though social partners (in South EasternEurope) still feel they are ignored ormarginalised when it comes to criticaldecisions. Because it is a complex sector,

particularly in its interaction with the labourmarket, overall financing for VETsometimes lacks transparency, and there isa tendency to create institutions with wideresponsibilities but without the means toachieve them (such as VET centres)5.

Social partner involvement exists at locallevel in schools, training centres andenterprises, with both public and privateinitiatives and with cooperation betweenemployers and trade unions. Occasionallythere is the temptation to judge successesat local level to have occurred in spite of,rather than because of, governmentinterventions. Some of therecommendations below suggest the needto broaden or reinforce cooperation beyondproviding work placements and practicaltraining for students, and to developpermanent units for professional andtraining needs analysis and forecasting, inorder to formulate methods that couldcombine statistics with active and regularcontributions from the enterprise system.This would also involve cooperationbetween schools/training centres and localemployment offices. As with many of theEU Member States there is a lack ofadequate statistics and databases for VET,both for initial training that is separate fromgeneral secondary and for continuingtraining.

All sides require a greater understanding oftheir opportunities and responsibilities, butalso a better awareness of how institutionsand organisations work and how changeand reform can be managed. This isrelevant to policy processes, and the rolethat each actor plays in them.

16


5 Turkey, which has a different 20th century history and a population of 74 million, while sharing many of thepreoccupations of the other three South Eastern European countries, stands somewhat apart in the relativematurity of its institutional arrangements for VET.

4. PERCEIVED BENEFITS OFSOCIAL PARTNER DIALOGUEAND STRUCTURES THATPARTICULARLY CONCERNVOCATIONAL EDUCATION ANDTRAINING: THE CHALLENGE

‘What is required is a shift from socialdialogue to social partnership6.’

In order to generate interest among thesocial partner stakeholders, it is necessaryto demonstrate the benefits of participationto all concerned.

Employers need to see the potential forincreases in labour productivity. They wantto be assured that the people they hirefrom training institutions are well prepared,and they want a better return on thetraining taxes they might be paying. Withregard to continuing training andin-company provision, employers arereluctant to see staff whom they havetrained being poached by otherenterprises. It will ultimately be necessaryto develop a culture of overall investment intransferable training.

Trade union members need to see thatstandards can improve job entry prospects,wages and mobility for their members. For

both employers and employees there is acase for local development strategies. Themost recent research demonstrates the linkbetween continuing training for enterprisesand increased employability andcompetitiveness. Perceived from a tripartiteperspective (government, employers andtrade unions) it is possible to findarticulations of the values outlined above ineach of the four countries.

There is a recognition in the four countriesof the peer learning exercise of the issuesoutlined above, and a clear identification inpolicy documentation and actual orprospective legislation of the important roleof social dialogue. In each country thereality on the ground (in terms of strategicimplementation) may be quite differentfrom the rhetoric. The remaining sectionsof this document explore the convergenceand divergence of theory and actualpractice, with the actual practice beingpresented in the case studies for eachcountry.

17

4

6 The quotations throughout the paper reflect statements of the peers.

5. CONTEXT: THEFRAMEWORK OF SOCIALPARTNERSHIP IN TOURISMAND CONSTRUCTION

‘Context is everything, or nearlyeverything.’

The self-study documents show that eachof the four countries respond differently tothe same questions, as a result of anumber of factors: range of population size(approximately 2 million; 4.5 million;7.3 million and 74 million); geographicallocation and country borders; demographictrends; internal and external migration;employment and unemployment trends;recent conflict history; recentindependence; and impacts of theinternational community.

All these variables are relevant in Croatia,the former Yugoslav Republic ofMacedonia, Serbia and Turkey.

There is a danger in applying a commonapproach to these countries regardless of

their location on the developmentspectrum. One can ask the samequestions, but the answers are likely to bedifferent. For example, donor interventionshave taken place to a different extent andwith a different timescale in each of thecountries. All four have ambitions to jointhe EU and have access to EU funds, butthe timescales and politics are different.

Furthermore, when discussing prospectivedecentralisation it is important to rememberthat three of the countries’ overallpopulation sizes are at the level to which alarger country, such as Turkey, mightdecentralise. Historically, Turkey hasmature social partner structures; whetherthese are fully effective is a matter fordiscussion. The other three countries fromSouth Eastern Europe are in transition,with legislation and institutions still in astate of flux.

19

5

‘The complexities of the labour marketand of VET’s relationship with it are sogreat that few people (even working inthe field) can understand them.’

VET responds to labour market demands.Nevertheless, even in a weak labourmarket the capacity of VET to respond toboth actual and prospective demandsneeds to be developed in the medium term.

VET as a separate subsystem interactswith the labour market. This creates theneed for quite complex structures,institutions and coordination. Examples aregiven for each country in the annexes ofgood practice in the way VET structures(with social partner involvement) respondto labour market needs. Each example hasbeen supported and influenced by EUdonor funding.

20


6. THE LOCAL LEVEL: THEBOTTOM-UP PERSPECTIVEOF SOCIAL PARTNERSHIPAND THE ROLE OFVOCATIONAL SCHOOLS ANDTRAINING CENTRES

‘School directors everywhere are verycapable of interpreting central control tothe advantage of the local situation; inthe UK as a consequence they are paidmore than senior civil servants.’

For VET, the local level is where the clientsare to be found; the central level is wherecontrol instruments remain important.

In many countries the attempt to bring VETcloser to labour markets, especially localones, has been a major reason foreducation authorities to grant moreautonomy to institutions, in terms of bothletting them decide on (parts of) thecurricula in relation to local conditions, andallowing them greater freedom inorganising the learning process.

The question of coordination at local andregional levels is an important one.

Decentralisation of one form or another isnecessary to effect the responsiveness ofVET towards local markets. Who decideswhat and where is a question for reviewand reform. Equally important are theconstitutional obligations at each level, forexample the legislation for establishinginstitution governing bodies (and theirrelative autonomy to relate to local socialpartners and for social partnerinfrastructure).

Hence, decentralisation for VET impliesfinancial responsibility at local level butrequires national uniform technicalguidelines in areas such as occupationalstandards, vocational qualifications andcore curricula in order to retain a steeringrole for government. It also needs toaddress the local/regional involvement ofthe social partners. Decentralisation canalso signify delegation of technical

21

6

responsibilities to bodies at local level (inareas such as standards, qualifications andfinance).

For vocational schools and training centresit is important to remember that legislation,financing and infrastructure exist only tosupport education and training at locallevel. They have no other function. Duringthe peer group’s visits to the four countriesit was interesting to see that their interestwas greater when they visited schools andcentres – whether public or private, tourismor construction – where the real ‘nitty-gritty’problems could be identified at groundlevel.

In all four countries, with some variations,the disappointments expressed haveconcerned:

� the lack of school autonomy and thepersistence of centralised control;

� the lack of schools’ ability to controltheir own budgets, particularly inrespect of earned income derived fromtraining for local enterprises;

� the direct products of initial trainingprovision and its curricular relevance todemand;

� the lack of concern for local labourmarkets and local labour marketinformation;

� local and national political (andtherefore policy) turbulence.

Best practice in relation to social partnersin all four countries has largely beenperceived to be at institution (school) level,and to a lesser extent at regional level, anotable example being the TurkishProvincial Employment and EducationCouncils. Examples of good practiceinclude:

� school–enterprise relations relating bothto the relevance of curriculum contentand to opportunities for trainee practice;

� the establishment of schools that arepart-funded by social partners;

� the participation of social partners asmembers of school boards or advisorybodies (and the functions of the latter);

� the participation of social partners asmembers of examining bodies and

therefore their involvement with qualityissues.

The issues illustrated below are: practiceorganised by a training institute funded bysocial partners in Turkey; the difficulties ofestablishing enterprise links in relativelyweak formal economies; the perception ofsocial partner involvement in schooldecision-making bodies in sucheconomies; and involvement of socialpartners in examining bodies in Serbia.

Despite some recent decentralisation,school–employer links in the three Balkancountries seem to be based largely onpersonal relationships and initiatives, andin several cases are remnants of the oldsystem.

The overall advantages and disadvantagesof enterprise-based trainee practice arewell illustrated with the tourism example inthe Turkish self-study document.

Advantages

� Trainee education helps students to behumanistic, broadminded andwell-educated graduates who cancommunicate with people all around theworld.

� It gives students a chance to apply theinformation that they have acquiredtheoretically.

� It helps students to familiarisethemselves with the tourism sector.

� Students develop discipline as a resultof the training.

� It helps students to be social in apositive way.

Disadvantages

� The firms involved may see thestudents as a cheap labour force.

� Some franchise hotels are not willing towork with school graduates.

� The duration of trainee education canlead to boredom among the students.

� Some agencies have the studentsworking as normal workers, not astrainees.

� Some enterprises make the studentswork more than eight hours.

22


7. OLD AND NEW CONCEPTSOF SOCIAL PARTNERSHIP:SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN

‘If social partnership does not lead toreal change frustration among the socialpartners will grow and eventuallyundermine it altogether.’

‘Old’ social partnerships refer topartnerships between the government,employers and trade unions – tripartitesocial partnerships. They are ‘old’ in thesense that they represent a traditional typeof relationship, whereas ‘new’ socialpartnerships can include, for example, localgovernments, NGOs, civil organisationsand individual businesses.

In some areas, for example within thelabour market, issues such as wagenegotiations can be resolved throughbipartite partnerships between theemployers and trade unions. Other issuesrequire the participation of the governmentin a tripartite partnership, also commonlydescribed as a social partnership. As neworganisations participate in socioeconomicdevelopment they are increasingly beingconsidered social partners and thereforeinvited to participate in dialogue.

In all three cases social partnershipfunctions as a problem-solving process thathas evolved on the basis that all partiesagree that partnership and dialogue are thetools that facilitate the process. Thegovernment often provides the arena withinwhich the social partners, as stakeholders,engage in a flexible process of addressingimmediate problems while simultaneouslyattending to long-term development.Tripartite and bipartite structures exist in allfour countries. They produce very differentoutcomes depending on the state ofdevelopment and transition in eachcountry.

In Turkey the national tripartite structuresare well established, and sector and localsocial partners are able to take stronginitiatives; this is not to suggest that thesituation is perfect. In Croatia VETlegislation was adopted in spring 2009. InSerbia VET legislation (with implications forsocial partnership) has not yet beenupdated or, as in the former YugoslavRepublic of Macedonia, is very recent, asis its strategic implementation. The tradition

23

7

of centrally planned economies is not veryfar in the past. There are also anomalies,including the following: the traditionalstrength of the trade unions in the formerYugoslav Republic of Macedonia; theirrelative invisibility in Serbia; and also inSerbia, the variable and declining role ofthe chamber(s) of commerce as a virtualsocial partner.

In all of this the rather traditional notion ofstructured tripartite or bipartite socialpartnership prevails, whether as rhetoric orin reality. In all the countries, however,there is implicit or explicit multipartitepartnership involving partially decentralisedlocal government (locality, municipality,region or individual school). Urban planningfor the municipality of Ohrid in the formerYugoslav Republic of Macedonia is anexample involving both construction criteriaand the notion of ‘elite tourism’, togetherwith an inspectorate that is also concernedwith environmental issues. Constructionenterprises require a licence to operate.

Interest or lobbying groups can be seen asa further extension of the notion ofmultipartite partnership. The NationalChamber of Commerce in Serbia is anexample. Although the chambers ofcommerce as such are not formally seenas social partners, they have had asignificant role in the reform processes inSerbia. The Law on Chambers ofCommerce (Official Gazette of the

Republic of Serbia, No. 65/01) regulatesthe system of chambers of commerce.According to Article 1 of this law:

‘The chambers of commerce areinterest, independent andbusiness-professional organisations ofenterprises, entrepreneurs and otherforms of organisations dealing withindustry, which are linked by common

business interests in a particularterritory of the Republic of Serbia. Theyare part of a network of entities ofindustry that have the aim of realisingand ensuring common interests that areimportant for industry in Serbia.’

The role of the chambers at national andregional levels is a good illustration of theextension of the notion of socialpartnership beyond bipartite and tripartitearrangements. They are both part of recenthistory in the countries of South EasternEurope with a formalised role (they are,rightly or wrongly, seen by somecontemporary social partners as ahistorical part of government) and part of amore informal present and future. They canbe seen as both partners and competitors,the latter especially by the more traditionaltrade unions and employers’ associations.Very often taking the initiative, they makefull use of the scope they are allowed,sometimes in the face of resistance fromtraditional policy influencers, often ingovernment.

Overall, in the three Western Balkancountries there are examples of bipartite,tripartite and multipartite initiatives, butweak formalised infrastructures. In Turkeythere are mature structures consistent witha large country (in terms of both populationand geography). These structures are alsoconsistent with the ability to representsocial partner interests in influencinggovernment and in taking funding initiativesof their own, a position towards whichsocial partners in South Eastern Europestill largely aspire. Nevertheless, in all fourcountries – Turkey, Croatia, Serbia andthe former Yugoslav Republic ofMacedonia – it is the government,represented by line ministries, that isorganising the arena and determining therules of the game.

24


8. LEGISLATION ANDFINANCING: SOCIALPARTNERSHIP BASED ONSHARING RESOURCES ANDRESPONSIBILITIES

‘Law-making is not enough. There is aneed to make the principle of socialpartnership work in practice throughmore support, dialogue andpartnerships at local and school levels.’

Legislation relevant to social partnership isat different stages of development in thefour countries, though there are significantoverlaps in Croatia, Serbia and the formerYugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Thelegislative support for social partnership inTurkey is more mature.

A number of questions apply to all fourcountries.

A. What political will exists (at the differentlevels of government and within thedifferent social partner constituencies)for legislation to enable social dialogueto take place? If this already exists, howeffective has its implementation been?

B. How far is actual and intendedlegislation compatible with parallellegislation (for example, on labour, localgovernment and lifelong learning)?

C. Do the sections on finance,decentralisation and the role of VETinstitutions need to be strengthened?

The answers to these questions for thethree Western Balkan countries are mixed.There has been weak political will,accompanied by political and governmentalchange; parallel legislation is oftenconflicting; and greater clarity and anincreased level of autonomy are required inrelation to both decentralisation and therole of schools. In the case of finance, theissue is often the lack of transparencyrather than an overall lack of money. Insome cases legislation has been delayedor overturned, or is inadequate. In others,legislation as a whole is subject to constantchange.

25

8

‘VET curricula and even organisationalreform is relatively easy compared withfinance, where so many complexinterests at every level need to beassuaged.’

Financial issues can be divided into:

� macro-level funding (government as awhole and alternative funding for VET);

� micro-level funding (specific funding tosustain social partner activities andsocial partner institutions, and specificsector initiatives such as schools fundedthrough bipartite initiatives).

Finance for VET is always limited andgovernments are constantly looking forways in which they can:

1. mobilise untapped resources by:� increasing revenues from traditional

sources; and/or� diversifying sources of financing for

VET, i.e. raising revenues from non-traditional sources;

2. improve the efficient use of existingresources.

Whatever their other virtues, decentralisingto local level and seeking funding from theprivate sector are two means of divertingfinancing responsibility away from centralgovernment.

Conversely, from the social partner point ofview it might be desirable to establishsome programmes in which the socialpartners manage public funds that areallocated to continuing training. This isbecause entrepreneurs believe they knowmuch more about how in-company trainingcan be made efficient, and can manageresources for continuing training andcompany-based training within initialtraining or apprenticeships better and moreefficiently than governments can.

From the central government point of view,payroll levies for apprenticeships orcontinuing training are one means ofraising funds from enterprises.Implementation methods vary: light butobligatory tax levies (Italy); agreementformulas (Belgium, the Netherlands andthe United Kingdom); heavy obligatory taxlevies (France); and a combination ofobligatory tax levies and agreementformulas (Scandinavian countries).

Co-financing, or ‘matching funds’, which ischaracterised by cost sharing betweeneach actor involved in the VET system(public institutions, enterprises andindividuals) is an approach that can:

� reduce the financial burden ongovernments;

� promote local initiatives;� garner additional resources from the

private sector;� allow public resources to be used to

encourage specific initiatives connectedto the development of VET.

Public–private partnership experiences inVET financing still appear modest. Whilethere is an interest in such partnerships inall EU Member States, experienceremains limited. The United Kingdomstands out as having the longest and mostsubstantial experience of public–privatepartnerships.

In Turkey and Croatia tax exemptions exist,and some initiatives for private orpublic–private partnerships have beenimplemented. Vocational schools in Turkeyhave much better prospects for generatingtheir own income through production effortscompared with the other three countries,although in all four countries the provisionof adult learning programmes – a potentialsource of income for schools – is verymodest or absent.

26


9. COORDINATION,STRUCTURES ANDINSTITUTIONS: THEFRAMEWORK FOR POLICYIMPLEMENTATION

‘The transition phase has had negativeeffects on the economy, social partnersand schools […] but there are positivemoments. Now there is a need for amore systematic, structured approach.But it is difficult to change minds, andwe lack competences.’

‘There has been experimentation, whatis now required is consolidation.’

In order to fulfil the functions prescribed byactual or intended government VETreforms involving social dialogue, thefollowing questions need to be asked.

� Are the main institutions in place(whether or not these are identified bythe legislation)?

� Are their statutes clear?� Do more institutions need to be

created?� How are relations between them to be

coordinated?

� How long will it be before they canexercise their functions effectively?

� What is the financing base?

Statutes, working priorities and methods allneed to be tested and developed, and thenecessary capacity development must takeplace. Fresh and specific VET legislation(Section 8, above) might fill some of thegaps that are apparent in roles andresponsibilities. Institutional support forlabour market information and skillsanalysis is also required at each level.

A critical question is how far an overlappingrange of institutional places are required forthe labour market. These include cyclicalapproaches towards labour market needsand training analysis developed at local,regional, entity and national levels,systematically consolidated through theestablishment of appropriate institutions. Inorder to ensure permanent inputs inrelation to occupational and training needs

27

9

as well as curriculum content, theparticipative involvement of the socialpartners may need to be consolidated bythe renewal and further development ofappropriate organisations for partnershipamong key parties, including the state, themunicipalities, employers and employees.

Another critical decision is the extent towhich common institutional places can beshared for all functions in education, andwhether vocational education (the specificnature of which provides common groundfor the interests of many ministries andsocial partners) needs its own institutionalplaces, now or in the future, or whether itcan share common institutional places forspecific issues (for example, assessment).

The findings, particularly in the WesternBalkan countries, are mixed. Employers’associations overlap with chambers (ofcommerce, of industry, of crafts, of the

economy). In fact they are in competitionfor influence. VET and adult agencies (orcentres) have been created, delayed orabolished, then re-created andunder-resourced. In Turkey a nationalqualification framework is being developedby the Vocational Qualifications Authority(VQA), whereas in Croatia this process iscoordinated by the existing VET Agencythrough sector committees. The other twocountries still have to decide whether todevelop a national qualificationframework, and if so, what its structure willbe. Coordination among ministries isvariable or non-existent. Trade unionsconsider VET a very low priority. In all ofthis, the role of ministries of education(even in Turkey) is not always transparent,particularly as they may wish to retain acontrolling function in relation to the socialpartners. Clarity, coordination and trustare not seen as their principalcharacteristics.

28


10. CONCLUSIONS ANDRECOMMENDATIONS:TOP-DOWN AND BOTTOM-UPPERSPECTIVES

The peer learning exercise – frompreparation to peer learning events withinthe countries7 – took place during themiddle months of 2008, when financialcrises and actual or possible recessionwere at the top of the international agenda.The two occupational sectors chosen toillustrate the principal themes (constructionand tourism) are among those that aremost affected by the economic downturn.The global financial crisis might also affectthe EU strategies emanating from theLisbon, Copenhagen, Maastricht andHelsinki agendas.

When considering conclusions andrecommendations it is important to bear inmind that Turkey’s population size(74 million, compared with 7.3 million inSerbia, 4.5 million in Croatia and 2 millionin the former Yugoslav Republic ofMacedonia) and its historical context in the20th and 21st centuries, together with its

strong institutional developments, oftenkeep it not separate from, but to one sideof, the issues pertinent to the threeWestern Balkan countries.

In this section two perspectives – top-downand bottom-up – are put forward. It isimportant to include both when reflectingthe current state of affairs shown by thefindings. The top-down perspective relatesto social dialogue as policy and strategy,while the bottom-up perspective concernssocial partnership in VET practice at localand school levels (as opposed to initiativesfrom the policy level). In this respect theinteraction between top-down andbottom-up initiatives is important.

The top-down approach is linked to socialdialogue and to VET policy and strategy.A top-down approach in this case willessentially involve breaking down a system– social dialogue and VET policy and

29

10

7 Country visits took place as follows: Croatia, 6–10 September 2008; Serbia, 10–13 September 2008;the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, 5–8 October 2008; Turkey, 8–11 October 2008.

strategy – in order to gain insight into itscomponent sub-systems (governmentlevel, ministries, legislation, financing).Basically, a greater understanding of thetop-down approach gives a better sense ofthe magnitude of change that will berequired in order to achieve the objectivesof the reform.

Reviewing government policy and strategicimplementation, involving policy papers,legislation, financing and infrastructure fordelivery, may reveal political turbulenceincluding and involving frequent changes ofgovernment and hence of policy direction.This has created a lack of ‘joined-upthinking’ and continuity.

‘Government may have other immediatepriorities than the infrastructure for theeconomic and social development of thepeople.’

The bottom-up approach relates to VETpractice rather than policy, and todevelopments at local level. In a bottom-upapproach the different sub-systems arepieced together to create a larger system,and in this case the focus was on socialpartner involvement in education andtraining practice, as well asschool–enterprise relations.

In all four countries there are manyexamples of good local cooperation amongthe social partners, and between the socialpartners and local schools and trainingcentres. Very often, though not always, thiscooperation takes place in spite of or inreaction to the government’s lack of priorityin respect of VET rather than as a result ofgovernment initiatives. This varies fromcountry to country, and in all four there aresteps, albeit rather slow and uncertainones, towards regional and localdecentralisation. The peers themselveswere far more impressed by what ishappening at ground level than by what ishappening in the policy stratosphere (seeSections 5–11 of this report).

The turbulence and uncertainty atgovernment level (especially in the three

Western Balkan countries) was contrastedby the peers with the tangible initiativesand projects on the ground, where a higherdegree of sustainability was evident. At thesame time there was little evidence thatthese local initiatives were used to steerpolicies.

‘The social partners must take theireconomic and social case (evenaggressively) to government, whoseduty it is to respond.’

The summary conclusions andrecommendations that follow are derivedboth from the specific sections in the textand from the detailed self-studydocuments8 prepared by each countryteam. Plenty of instances of good practiceare mentioned, as are urgent needs forchange. The conclusions andrecommendations are separate butcomplementary, and are drawn from thecontents of the succeeding sections.

10.1 CONCLUSIONS:TOP-DOWN AND BOTTOM-UPPERSPECTIVES

Despite some encouraging efforts, there isstill a lack of robust mechanisms atgovernment level for inter-ministerial andinter-agency cooperation. This isparticularly the case for relationshipsbetween ministries of education, labourand economy, whose separate initiativesconcerning social partnership often remainuncoordinated.

Ministries of education (with their variousadjuncts, such as culture, science andsport) are generally less transparent thanthey could be in relation to policydirection, finance and the sub-agenciesthey control. Despite some progress, theyare also less inclined to cede control tosocial partner infrastructures. This is partlybecause they have long histories andlarge budgets, and partly because theyhave complex procedures andclassifications which also cross ministerialboundaries.

30


8 The country peer team has full ownership of this national background document, and is responsible forproducing it in the form of a ‘self-study’. The self-study document informs peers about issues in the countryconcerned, and in particular it is a base for facilitating discussions during the peer learning event.

Ministries have found it difficult to emergefrom historically centralised andbureaucratic regimes. One issue is that allstates control the distribution of valuableassets and the imposition of onerous costs.The distribution of these benefits is underthe control of agents who possessdiscretional powers and who are reluctantto abandon them. Most social partnerorganisations show a similar lack ofsuccess in moving from traditional(wage-conflict-oriented) approaches tomore open and broader ways of seekingconsensus on a range of issues, includinglifelong learning. Moreover, in many casesthe low membership numbers call intoquestion the representativeness of theorganisations.

Different political actors (employers, tradeunions, bureaucrats) come to the table withspecific economic interests that are eitherhelped or hindered by different institutionalarrangements. This creates a ‘win or lose’scenario involving bargains and changes.The peers see the ‘game’ very often asbeing tipped towards government, with aperception of indifference towards theissue of social partnership (or, as is oftenthe case, with rhetoric rather than reality).This is often accompanied by politicianignorance and indifference towards VET,and hence a lack of political will to pursuechange. Turkey may be an exception, withits policy of moving secondary provisiontowards a level of 60% VET as it movesthrough transition from a traditionallyagricultural economy.

Legislation and regulation supporting socialpartnership in relation to VET is subject tofrequent change, very often withoutconsultation with the social partners,especially with regard to the expectation oftheir own financial contributions (forexample, payroll levies and taxexemptions). Specific VET legislation isoften drafted without taking into accountcomplementary legislation on such issuesas labour, local government and generaleducation.

In general the financing of VET often lackstransparency, the capacity forsustainability, and realism, for example inthe creation of VET centres to manage the

whole range of VET activities (includinginvolvement of the social partners) withoutthe financial means to do so.

Institutional mechanisms (the VQA inTurkey; VET Councils and Centres inSerbia and the former Yugoslav Republicof Macedonia; VET and Adult EducationAgencies in Croatia) are in the process ofconstruction and development, with thepartial or total involvement of the socialpartners. This is a positive beginning and asign of progress. The danger is that therewill be token representation and a lack offinancing and sustainability; delays andindifference on the part of governmentcould also hinder progress. There may alsobe a lack of understanding on all sides ofhow organisations work and how changecan be brought about.

There is a lack of information and analysis,reflecting a historical lack of esteem forVET compared with general secondary orhigher education. Very few countries,whether EU Member States or accessioncountries, have statistical systems that canprovide data on aggregated costs (andeven fewer can give data on disaggregatedcosts) for VET as opposed to other types ofeducation. Initial and continuing trainingare only occasionally monitored.

VET is an education and trainingsub-system responding to a labour marketof some complexity. A critical question ishow well the overlapping range ofinstitutional places required for the labourmarket have been adequately establishedin each of the four countries, includingcyclical approaches towards labourmarket needs and training analysisdeveloped at local, regional, entity andnational levels, systematicallyconsolidated by the establishment ofappropriate institutions.

There is little evidence that social partnershave been involved in the educationprocess itself, except in cases where newcurricula have been developed with mainlydonor support. However, the initiatives inCroatia and Turkey to develop nationalqualification frameworks provide a goodplatform for social partner involvement inthe development of qualifications.

31

10. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:TOP-DOWN AND BOTTOM-UP PERSPECTIVES

On the other side of the negotiating tablethe social partners themselves very oftenrequire a clearer articulation of their actualand potential role, and the will (andfinancial means) to fulfil it. This is moreoften the case for trade unions, for whomVET can be a very low priority forbipartite/tripartite or multipartite negotiation.

The nature of, and hence the structuresrequired to support, social partnership isnot always clear. There is a tendency toorganise relationships around traditionalperceptions of bipartite and tripartitestructures, whereas social partnership,globally, is increasingly seen as amultipartite arrangement involving, forexample, local government and possiblyboth the historical and contemporary rolesof the chambers.

What is missing, or exists ratherhaphazardly at local level, is the capacity todefine occupational sector priorities andskill needs, and, for schools, the capacityto be responsive to employers and thecommunity at local and regional levels.While at national level there is some abilityto collect, analyse and report labour marketinformation, this capacity is much weakerat local level, where labour marketsactually exist. There is a perception thatsocial partners are often reluctant to beinvolved with local collaborative structures,although the international evidence is that ifsuch structures are created, social partnerinvolvement is high.

Local collaboration and indeed continuingtraining provision by schools are limitedbecause of the lack of curriculum, financialand personnel autonomy, despite (largelycosmetic) policy moves in this direction.

10.2 GOOD PRACTICE: IDEASAND INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONSTHAT WORK

The somewhat severe conclusions aboveare mitigated by cases of good practice onthe part of social partners at local level inall four countries. Examples include:

� local and school initiatives inconstruction and tourism (describedthroughout this report);

� mature social partner structures inTurkey, in particular the development ofthe VQA with its tripartiterepresentation, which was establishedby law in 2006 and which reinforcededucation policy dialogue as a whole;

� the existence in the former YugoslavRepublic of Macedonia of VETlegislation, a VET Council and VETCentre, and good labour marketinformation from the EmploymentService Agency (ESA);

� the tourism strategy and master plansfrom the Ministry of Economy in Serbia;these demonstrate positive intentions,but have yet to be financed;

� the endorsement of the strategy for VETdevelopment in Croatia (2008–2013);

� the active involvement of social partnersin both the sector councils (seeSection 11) and the Croatian nationalqualification framework;

� the involvement of social partners inexamination committees in Serbia andin three-year craft occupation training inCroatia.

10.3 RECOMMENDATIONS:TOP-DOWN AND BOTTOM-UPPERSPECTIVES

Since it is unrealistic to believe that politicalturbulence, whether global or national, islikely to disappear, and with it policyuncertainty, concentration on the local andschool levels could be given a higherpriority by donors, social partners andgovernments. After all, national andregional infrastructures exist only tosupport VET delivery at school and trainingcentre level. This is certainly where thepeers’ interests lie.

Social dialogue at policy level

Inter-ministerial coordination is a must,whether it takes place through a council ofministers or through a specialised agencybeyond the line ministries. It is for eachcountry to decide on the level ofinteraction, from light cooperation to astrong coordination body (with formal socialpartner involvement). A nationalqualifications body (such as the TurkishVQA) might fulfil this need.

32


Ministries of education in particular requiregreater transparency. Social partnerinvolvement in the budget planning processcould help to identify proposed projectsand allocations that are the highestpriorities for the community. This wouldcontribute to a more efficient use of limitedresources. Citizens – even social partners– often have a limited understanding ofhow government functions can breeddistrust. At the same time, governmentofficials often feel buffeted by competingdemands that they cannot meet withexisting resources. Engaging in dialogueon budget issues could bridge this gap andfacilitate healthy debate about policies andpriorities.

Governments probably need to continue toorganise the arena, and provide support,for social dialogue. In order to achieve thisit is important to fully understand the socialpartners’ goals, competences andcapacities in relation to VET; this would bea step towards building consensus.Governments need to be fully aware ofwhere developments should be heading,especially with regard to how muchdecision-making power can be transferredto a social partnership structure. This iseven more important if VET managementand/or delivery is carried out by a numberof different ministries or committees.

This raises the issue of the need forphasing and planning for strategicimplementation, and hence forsustainability. Practical implementation andoperational requirements need to involvethe social partners and take into account:

� the order of priority for implementation;� the sequence of timescales and reform

strategies, and the steps that need to beconsistent with longer-term objectives;

� the need for appropriate mechanismsand timing;

� the framework by which operationalissues are to be addressed, in terms of,for example, topics, priorities andtimescales.

In considering new or revised legislationinvolving either the participation of socialpartners or the structuring of socialpartnerships, considerable care is required

in order to ensure consistency acrosssectors and ministries, especially ministriesof the economy, labour and localgovernment. In some cases there is asimple need to legislate and regulate forsocial partner involvement.

In order to be effective, partnerships needto consider different types of cost, such asthose required to establish the partnershipand then to manage it. It would beadvisable to consider a financing structurewith this in mind.

In line with this recommendation, it isnecessary to increase private investment,in collaboration with the social partners.Co-financing, or ‘matching funds’, which ischaracterised by cost sharing between theactors involved in the VET system(including public institutions, enterprisesand individuals) is an approach that could:

� reduce the financial burden ongovernments;

� promote local initiatives;� garner additional resources from the

private sector;� allow public resources to be used to

encourage specific initiatives connectedto the development of VET.

While political indifference to VET and itsinfrastructure is difficult to overcome, muchgreater administrative and managerialcompetences are required, together with abetter understanding of how organisationswork and relate to one another. This maybe a pious wish, but the emphasis fromdonors (and governments) requires aneven greater reinforcement of capacitybuilding in public administration. This mightavoid an unhealthy tendency to createinstitutions ‘to be responsible for theproblem, not to solve it’.

Arrangements for monitoring progress andcollecting evidence should include VETpolicies (including financing) usinginstruments commonly used for theevaluation of other public policies (in short,a public administration approach). Thebasic starting point for this analysis mustbe a common measurement framework.The elaboration of such a frameworkshould include not only the quantitative

33


aspects of the financing of VET systems(i.e. volume indicators), but also qualitativeaspects and mechanisms, and theconnections between the two.

At both state and VET institution levels it isnecessary to secure a clear relationshipbetween social partnership policy makingand its implementation and monitoring.Monitoring is becoming increasinglyimportant as an element of policydevelopment and learning. Partnershipbodies must take these developments intoconsideration when reviewing theiroperational framework in order to remainrelevant for policy making at national andVET institution levels.

In some areas, for example within thelabour market, issues such as wagenegotiations can be resolved throughbipartite partnership, specifically betweenthe employers and trade unions. Otherissues will require the participation of thegovernment in a tripartite partnership. Asnew organisations (such as localgovernment and municipalities) participatein socioeconomic development, suchorganisations may increasingly need to beconsidered as social partners, andtherefore invited to participate in the socialpartnership dialogue.

Social partner involvement in education

and training practice

In order to ensure permanent input tooccupational and training needs as well ascurriculum content, the participativeinvolvement of the social partners needs tobe consolidated by the renewal and furtherdevelopment of appropriate partnershiparrangements among key parties, i.e. thestate, the municipalities, employers andemployees. Mechanisms for vocationalguidance and counselling need to beintroduced at local level; both databasesand reader-friendly information sourcesshould be established.

The development of national qualificationframeworks is a particular area in whichsocial partner involvement is critical (seethe examples of the Turkish VQA and theCroatian Qualification Framework(CROQF) given in annex).

Social partnership bodies place a heavyburden on participating organisations, interms of both the workload involved andthe insight required by each organisationinto labour market and VET issues.Moreover, given their human and financialresource limitations, employers and tradeunions must also determine their overallpriorities and decide where VET sits withinthese priorities.

All four countries strongly demonstrate theneed for capacity building for socialpartners, whether this is in defining andarticulating their role, or funding andnegotiating their positions.

School–enterprise relations

All four countries identify support for socialpartner involvement at local level as apriority, though few conditions andmechanisms exist to facilitate this. In thesection of this report in which issues atlocal level are discussed, reference ismade to the key questions concerningrelative school autonomy in the fourcountries:

� financial – relating to the issue ofretention of earned income and capacityfor virement;

� curricular – relating to their capacity torespond to local needs;

� personnel – relating to their capacity toappoint appropriate staff.

There is much discussion of these issuesat policy level, but the implementation thatis necessary to support the developmentsat local level is long overdue.

Examples of good practice in local labourmarket relations at school level areillustrated throughout the text. However,what is really required is for these practicesto be ‘institutionalised’ through thefollowing actions:

� broadening the cooperation from afocus on work placement and practicaltraining arrangements to other areas forcooperation, and building up aparticipatory process involving keystakeholders on the labour demand sidethat will ensure permanent inputs, in

34


terms of occupational and trainingneeds, to local VET policymakers;

� developing, locally, a permanent unit forprofessional and training needs analysisand forecasting, working out methodsthat combine statistics with active andregular contributions from the enterprisesystem;

� consolidating working groups ofcross-regional stakeholders for therelevant occupational sectors.

In particular, schools need to build onexisting good practice, such as strongcooperation with employers in theidentification and quality monitoring oftraining places. As with other areas ofactivity (including curriculum development,certification and teacher training), one taskwill be to find institutional places for labourmarket analysis.

Schools themselves, in collaboration withlocal employment offices, could establish alocal experimental network (LENET) to testand develop:

� their own capacity to defineoccupational sector priorities and skillneeds;

� their own capacity to be responsive toemployers and the community at localand regional levels.

The intention would be for the localnetwork (as with its regional counterpart) toinclude local social partners, educators,public sector agencies and parents. Itwould be organised around schools’ owndirect capacity to define and respond tolocal needs.

A local experimental network couldinstitutionalise labour market informationand skill needs analysis by formalising andmaking routine links between a school, alabour office and enterprises and providingadministrative capacity to service itsfunctioning and its partners. All theinternational evidence is that socialpartners are motivated to be involved whenthere is an established structure to supportthat involvement.

35


11. POLICY LEARNING TOFACILITATE EDUCATIONALCHANGE WITH SOCIALPARTNERS: THE ROLE OFTHE GOVERNMENT

‘Organisational theory and changemanagement are little understood bythe actors in the field.’

The ETF 2008 peer learning projectbrought together policymakers and socialpartners as important groups ofstakeholders in the process of educationalchange. Through this approach it becameclear that the focus is on the transition frompolicy development to policyimplementation, a process that involvesmany stakeholders, and in particular thesocial partners.

The main idea of the approach is that thepolicymakers and social partners learnfrom the analysis of the issue in their owncountry and from being part of a peer team,as well as from the visits to policy arenas inthe field of social partner involvement ineducation and training in differentcountries. This approach may beconsidered as transitional, moving away

from an expert-driven knowledge-transfermodel towards participatory forms of policylearning in which policymakers and otherstakeholders have consolidated theirunderstanding of the needs of the reformsof education systems.

Reform and change has to be carried outlargely by existing staff, and despitewidespread agreement on global policyobjectives and improved policies, reformactors might still be uncomfortable at theprospect of changing traditional ways.Accomplishing change is about reversingdeeply embedded policies and stronglyheld beliefs. While system change intransition countries was traditionallydesigned by the centre and decreed fromthe top, the political culture is now slowlychanging. This allows local agents to claima stake in the design of reform concepts.

With growing importance being attached toeducation, it is increasingly attracting the

37

11

interest of many different lobbies andconstituencies. The days when educationpolicies were developed by the ministryalone and implemented by schools,teachers and learners are coming to anend. Policy implementation is not a linear,rational process, but usually involvescomplex mediation among competinginterests. This is one of the main reasonswhy modern reform approaches arebroader in scope: they are seeking ways ofinvolving the various stakeholders.Collaboration becomes a categoricalimperative. The centre needs to focus onnorms and the periphery on delivery. If thetwo are to function together, a clear senseof public purpose is needed, as well asnew partnerships and skills.

Agencies need to be given the necessarypowers to organise activities and becomenegotiating arenas. A shift is taking place inthe policy management of public services:the stress is no longer on inputs but onoutputs. Such a process of culturaltransformation and the translation of policyinto practice is almost always an extremelylengthy process. McLeish argues in theintroduction to Processes of Transition in

Education Systems (McLeish and Phillips,1998) that the completion of the transitionprocess at the structural–legislative level inno way implies that educational transitionat the micro level has been achieved. Tochange a label is easy; to effect acomprehensive change in practice is verydifficult.

System change must build on existinginstitutional structures that have developedhistorically. It is likely to be achieved onlythrough small, incremental change innarrow and targeted areas and only wherethere is equilibrium between radical changeand traditional forces. Change requires aclear sense of public purpose, newpartnerships and new skills, as well ascareful policy coordination, compensatorymechanisms and collaboration in adequateforums for consultation and decisionmaking. These are the challenges.

An important conclusion from the ETF2008 peer learning experience is that theearly involvement of social partners in thedevelopment of policy strategies will lead tostronger co-ownership and will thereforefacilitate co-financing and implementation.Social partners are part of the policyprocess – they shape, they lead, theyretreat, they chop and they can have astrong influence on policies, sometimes inunexpected directions. Therefore, atnational level, governments need tofacilitate this process by:

� fully understanding social partners’goals, competences and capacities inrelation to VET as the first step towardsbuilding consensus;

� being fully aware of wheredevelopments should be heading,especially with regard to how muchdecision-making power can betransferred to a social partnershipstructure; this is of particular importanceif VET management and/or delivery iscarried out by a number of bodies, suchas ministries or committees;

� involving social partners in the processwhere the government itself is a majorplayer, a feature that should not beunderestimated;

� acknowledging that employers (andpossibly even trade unions), particularlyin transition countries, are reluctant topush harder for influence simplybecause they are afraid that it mightbackfire; employers are exploring theemerging opportunities and theirboundaries, often taking a cautiousapproach and making sure they do notstep unnecessarily on the authorities’toes.

The difficulty in all of this is theadministrative and management capacityto implement policy and structures evenwhen these have been legislated for. Thisis the most difficult issue in the entire policyprocess.

38


ANNEXES

ANNEX 1: CROATIA

In Croatia the Employers’ Association, the trade unions for construction and tourism andthe chambers of commerce and economy cooperate on VET issues. They believe that theirinvolvement in VET policy issues is very important. The government has created initialtraining and adult learning implementing agencies in consultation with, and withparticipation from, the social partners. The difficulty for the social partners is that theyperceive themselves to be marginalised when it comes to the more important governmentdecisions. In particular, they consider as problematic the three-year programmes forconstruction and tourism VET profiles, which are unable to attract sufficient numbers ofyoung people. This has a significant impact on the quality of the labour force in thesesectors. Among the alleviating factors are the Employers’ Association initiative to providescholarships to attract students into construction, and similar initiatives from the Ministry ofTourism for tourism and catering students.

School-based VET in Croatia is currently regulated by the Secondary Education Act. Athree-year VET secondary education programme for craft occupations/apprenticeships isregulated by the Trades and Crafts Act, and a number of by-laws regulate theresponsibilities of the Ministry of Economy, Labour and Entrepreneurship and the CroatianChamber of Trades and Crafts (CCTC).

The improvement of legislation is an on-going process. A new Primary and SecondaryEducation Act was adopted in early 2009. This includes a number of general provisionsrelating to the VET system. A proposal for the contents of a separate VET Act wasdelivered in 2006 within the framework of the CARDS 2002 VET project. It was adoptedthrough the relevant parliamentary procedure in 2009. This VET Act is seen as crucial forsteering the reform process and providing a legal basis for appropriate strategic measures.With regard to the role of the social partners, it is widely expected that the Act will provide

39

a legal basis for a more comprehensive and sustainable role, and subsequently for thedevelopment of new initiatives and approaches at both tripartite and bipartite levels.

A Development Strategy for the VET System (2008–2013) was adopted in 2008 with anaction plan updated annually and presented to the Economic and Social Council. AStrategy for Adult Education and the relevant action plan was adopted by the Governmentof the Republic of Croatia in 2004. Parliament subsequently passed the Adult EducationAct in 2007, creating the conditions for the integration of adult education into Croatia’seducation system for the first time. The act, inter alia, introduces some new concepts, suchas education leave, adult education funding, and the partnership principle, which relates tothe overall promotion of social dialogue at national and sector levels. In the summer of2008 new regulations were established governing tax exemptions for enterprisesundertaking training.

It is also important to note that a number of very visible structures have recently beenestablished. Apart from the Economic and Social Council, the Ministry of Science,Education and Sports has created three agencies (the Agency for VET; the Agency forAdult Education and the Agency for Education and Teacher Training). Strategies exist forVET and adult provision. Legislation has been created for the latter, and is forthcoming forthe former. The Ministry of Economy, Labour and Entrepreneurship has strong links withthe chambers of economy and craft. Other line ministries have direct responsibilities forcontinuing training.

The labour legislation provides the legal bases for the establishment of the Economic andSocial Council as a tripartite body of representatives of the government, trade unions andemployers. The council has the major tasks of consulting on economic and social issues,where VET also plays an important role. The Economic and Social Council functions as anadvisory body to the Croatian government.

In Croatia a long-established historical tradition is now in transition, and this necessitatesthe rebuilding of the adult education system while it gains independence, together withrelated changes in the political, economic and social systems, and factors such as theprocess of privatisation, the closing down of large companies, market insecurity, risks inthe field of business, high unemployment, and planning difficulties, especially for small andmedium-sized enterprises. This situation applies equally to initial training, where financingis an integral part of the prospective VET Act. Anticipation of the act has not affectedinitiatives such as a teaching training contribution given by employers without charge. Inthis context, questions raised by social partners suggest a number of preoccupations.

� A major question will be how to finance the sector councils.� Financing for adult provision is not institutionalised.� Different ministries have different plans, priorities and criteria. Hence, it is almost

impossible to ascertain the total amount of expenditure on adult training provision. Eachline ministry has its own budget, and there is no integration.

� The Ministry of Economy, Labour and Entrepreneurship has contact with and providesfunding for employers through projects, but small companies do not always have theadministrative resources necessary to be involved (they need more support).

� There is inertia on the part of employers because, procedurally, funds from ministriesand the employment agency are difficult to access.

� Employers need to be motivated to train employees. There is not enough financialincentive: the Ministry of Economy, Labour and Entrepreneurship has a state subsidieslaw, but the Adult Education Act introduced by the Ministry of Science, Education andSports does not include a finance section.

� There are tax exemptions for in-company training, but employers see the proceduresthat must be followed as being more costly than the benefits.

� There was a suggestion of financing by companies in the first draft of the AdultEducation Act, though no mechanisms were mentioned.

40


The current turbulence is unlikely to last forever. Although the situation is vulnerable now,gradual improvements might be possible over time.

All social partners have established functions or departments that are actively involved inthe planning and implementation of various initiatives relating to education and training andemployment issues. In the main they are members of steering committees of various EUprojects on employment and education. The Croatian Chamber of Economy is particularlyactive in planning and implementing initiatives relating to the integration of Croatia into theEU. The most recent of these is the Regional Centre for Entrepreneurship Development.

The Employment Service focuses mainly on preventing long-term unemployment, and alsoon the delivery of career guidance to basic schools. They are involved in regularawareness-raising activities on the role of social partners in education and training.However, the perception of the social partners is that greater coordination is requiredamong the ministries, agencies, chambers and delivery institutions.

The social partners’ perceptions are that the Ministry of Science, Education and Sports hasno major focal point for the management of adult education; and that while the Ministry ofEconomy, Labour and Entrepreneurship has contact with and funding for employersthrough projects, small companies do not have the administrative resources necessary tobe involved (they need more support). There is inertia on the part of employers because,procedurally, funds (or exemptions) seem difficult to access. One example is that of taxreductions or exemptions for in-company training. Interviews with tax advisers suggest thatthe majority of employers find the procedures too cumbersome to make it worthwhile forthem to pursue the projected benefits.

Based on the latest developments in the VET sector, social partnership in education andtraining is moving up the agenda. While it is already part of various strategic documents, itis still not seen as being organised effectively. The VET Agency has operated for threeyears and is preoccupied with reform while involving the social partners. For socialpartners and their role in education and training, this is mainly through the currentdevelopment of 13 Sector Councils which were established in 2006 by the Ministry ofScience, Education and Sports and the VET Agency, with support from the CARDS VETprogramme. These Sector Councils are presented as the major bodies that bring togetherdifferent social partners on VET issues. The supporting VET legislation was adopted inearly 2009.

VET Sector Councils are an important initiative. The Labour Market Working Group underthe CARDS VET 2002 project delivered a proposal for new VET areas/sectors, reducing31 education sectors to 14 (13 VET sectors9 and the Art Sector). Since the VET SectorCouncils have only recently been given a legal supporting framework (the necessary VETlegislation was expected in early 2009), they have so far acted as voluntary bodies with alimited mandate. Their main task is to establish a set of national qualifications following arevision of occupational standards in order to replace a fairly outdated occupational systemwith a modern, demand-led set of occupational standards and qualifications.

In 2006 Croatia started the process of developing a qualification framework. In 2007 thegovernment accepted the concept of a Croatian Qualification Framework (CROQF). ANational Committee headed by the deputy prime minister with an operational team led bythe Ministry of Science, Education and Sports is taking the work forward. The committee

41

ANNEXES

9 The redefined VET sectors are: (1) agriculture, food processing and animal health; (2) forestry and woodprocessing; (3) geology, mining, petroleum and chemical technology; (4) textiles and leather; (5) graphictechnology and audio-visual media; (6) mechanical engineering, shipbuilding and metallurgy; (7) electricalengineering and computer science; (8) construction and geodesy; (9) economics, trade and businessadministration, (10) tourism and catering; (11) traffic and logistics; (12) health and social care; and(13) personal, safety and other services.

has representation from both the VET and Adult Education Agencies. The CARDS AdultEducation Project has a complementary component on quality and accreditation.

In the areas of both curriculum development and financing the autonomy of schools is verylimited and, consequently, there is limited opportunity and motivation to establishcooperation with social partners at the regional or local level on vocational schoolcurriculum development or other relevant issues. The process of decentralisation that waslaunched in 2001 represented in most cases a simple deconcentration of financing to loweradministrative and governance levels. Links to local enterprises and organisations areweak (except to a certain extent in three-year craft programmes) and are not an integralpart of the curriculum.

Students on the three-year programme must find their own training places as aprerequisite for entry. Such opportunities depend on the economic situation of theparticular region; the economic prospects of local large companies or small entrepreneurs;local initiatives; and personal networks and initiatives of vocational school headteachersand teachers, and company managers. In a situation in which there are economicdifficulties and obvious regional disparities, where unemployment is high and wherecompanies give little emphasis to training, traditional links with schools have in the majorityof cases deteriorated or even ceased to exist.

There are, however, many good examples. The VET Construction Secondary SchoolBedekovcina has well-established relations with Tondach Hrvatska, a large constructioncompany. The three-year VET profiles are organised to include a significant amount ofpractical training in the school’s workshops. The tourism school in Opatja has developedrelationships both with local schools and with local hotels for which staff it provideslanguage courses.

The available labour force is made up of individuals who have been left without jobs fromother sectors and companies. The challenge is to retrain them. In order to improve thesituation, the Employers’ Association for Construction workers has financed thedevelopment of an additional curriculum based on 120 hours of training. Textbooks andteaching materials have been developed in cooperation with the Ministry of Science,Education and Sports.

ANNEX 2: THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

Reinforcement of social partnership is seen by all sides in the former Yugoslav Republic ofMacedonia as a key element for strengthening qualifications and competitiveness, and forincreasing employment. The changing nature of the modern working environment isperceived as requiring innovative approaches in education and training to produceflexibility and adaptable skills for the global market. The main roles of the social partners ineducation, training and employment, at least notionally, are the development ofqualification standards and curricula, the development of modular programmes, thepromotion and planning of lifelong learning activities, contracting with companies forpractical teaching for pupils, and the provision of training for various target groups(including those who are unemployed or socially unadaptable).

In the period 1996–2002 the country’s Social and Economic Council did not have its ownclearly defined goals or working agenda. At the same time the social partners wereextremely weak. They had to function in a delicate economic and social environmentcharacterised by high unemployment and a growing grey economy. The basis of socialdialogue is now established by the Labour Law of 2005. This defines the legal frameworkfor the development and functioning of employers’ and workers’ organisations, and

42


regulates labour relations. The same law provides the legal basis for the functioning of theSocial and Economic Council. The council depends on a tripartite agreement between thegovernment, the Economic Chamber of the Republic of Macedonia and the Federation ofTrade Unions of Macedonia. This raises again the question of the traditional role of theChamber (and chambers).

At national level, social dialogue for the construction sector is on a tripartite basis throughthe Social and Economic Council, which consists of: the Federation of Trade Unions ofMacedonia (SSM/FTUM), the Employers’ Organisation and the government. In thetripartite dialogue the Trade Union of Civil Engineering, Construction and IndustrialMaterials (SGIP) participates through SSM representatives, especially in relation to theratification of ILO Convention 94 on labour clauses in contracts for public procurement. Atbranch level the social dialogue for construction is bipartite between SGIP and employers’representatives through the Employers’ Organisation. At branch level in the tourism sector,more bipartite social agreements have been accomplished than tripartite ones. However,the tripartite system includes trade unions, the Employers’ Union (via the MacedonianChamber of Commerce and Hotel Association of Macedonia (HOTAM) for the hotelindustry) and the government. In neither sector does lifelong learning figure high on theagenda.

The Labour Law of 2005 governs social partnership in general. VET legislation, which hasbeen long in its preparation, is centred on initial training, with cross references to labour,local government and general education legislation together with lifelong learning. It spellsout the roles of the principal participants and institutions, but it is the type of legislation thatis ‘enabling’. For example, it covers mission, curriculum reform and qualification levels.Most importantly it legitimates and details the roles of the National VET Council andNational VET Centre, which respectively involve and deal with the social partners. TheVET legislation went through a lengthy drafting period (with inter-ministerial representation)between 2003 and 2005. Its passage into law was delayed by political change, whichresulted in it having low political priority, with the result that the establishment of theNational VET Council and Centre was delayed: the National Council met for the first timeonly in 2008.

There are three sources of funding for continuing training:

� institutions and enterprises providing informal, in-house training;� the unemployment fund, administered by the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy;� fees paid by individuals.

The data available on the extent of training provided by institutions and enterprises derivesfrom the very professional pilot skill needs analysis undertaken by the Employment Service(2006–2007) in eight occupational sectors. The evidence suggests that training provisionundertaken by enterprises is quite extensive. Enterprises needing a specifically skilledworkforce are generally dissatisfied with the quality and relevance of training provided bythe secondary vocational schools and therefore often provide the basic training required bynew employees before they become operational. The duration of the training varies, butcould last between three and twelve months. On-the-job training is not certified. The cost ofthe training is borne by the enterprise. Exceptionally, enterprises may pay for trainingprogrammes, often those offered by training providers outside the country.

Institutions such as hospitals require a workforce with specialist skills that are not currentlytaught in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. As a consequence, specialist skillshave to be developed on the job and are not given any formal certification. Institutionsreceive no compensation for the costs of providing training.

43

ANNEXES

The unemployment fund covers the costs of active and passive employment measures andthe administrative costs of the national and local employment offices. The provision oftraining is only one of a number of active measures, and it is therefore evident that theamount expended on training is relatively small. The detailed investigation of skill needs inthe country involved the use of detailed questionnaires and expert consultants.

Training is provided on the job by enterprises on condition that the trainee remains inemployment with the company for at least one year following the training. Localemployment offices arrange the training placements and make a monthly payment to theenterprise and to the trainee.

Vocational schools play little or no part in the retraining of unemployed individuals.Workers’ universities provide requalification and qualification courses on a fee-payingbasis. However, pilot regional centres (as in Serbia) have been identified as a means ofmeeting adult training needs.

Notionally, the ministries of labour and economy in the former Yugoslav Republic ofMacedonia both profess to be increasing inter-ministerial cooperation with VET projectactivities and developing greater focus for their own ministry’s involvement. The Ministry ofEconomy had formal involvement in drafting VET legislation and will have formalinvolvement in the VET Council. The National Action Project of the Ministry of Labour hashad full inter-ministerial involvement in its steering arrangements.

Nevertheless, the criticisms that emerge from key actors in the various constituencies ofthe VET system can be expressed as follows.

� Changes of government have led and do lead to discontinuities of policy and personnel.� Nothing happens without the necessary political will.� The different elements have not yet been fully brought together in a coherent

framework.� There has been experimentation; consolidation is now required.� Understanding and agreement, both top-down and bottom-up, have not been fully

achieved.� The institutional framework for policy implementation is still incomplete. This covers

areas such as occupational standards, labour market information, curriculumphilosophy, certification and evaluation.

� While the tools may have been developed, the structure has not.

Overall the question posed is how far the national and local experimental processes thathave so far been developed can be aggregated towards a coherent policy. The issues arewell articulated but there are gaps in the political/policy/implementation spectrum. The viewof one key actor was that the system is not lacking in harmony but that it is ‘up to us tomodify our conditions for strategic implementation’.

Social dialogue improved slightly in 2003 with the signing of the Agreement for SocialPartnership between the government and the Federation of Trade Unions of Macedonia,and with the changes in the structure of the new Social and Economic Council. However,dialogue through the Social and Economic Council does not function well because of aperceived lack of respect for the social partners on the part of the government. Socialdialogue at regional and local levels has not been active because of a lack of developmentin the municipalities and the slow process of decentralisation. The National VET Councilconvened in July 2008 for the first time. It remains to be seen which topics will be put onthe agenda, whether the economic social partners will participate fully and whether theirvoices will be listened to.

44


Following a CARDS project initiative, the Employment Service Agency (ESA) carries out asurvey on skills needs among employers on an annual basis. The survey covers mediumto large companies from eight sectors10. It analyses vacancies, the type of qualificationsand skills required, and the demographic profile of employees. The 2007 survey findingsresulted in training (with the help of the VET Centre) for so-called deficient profiles (profilesthat are in demand in the labour market but that have so far not been catered for) such aswelders.

The VET Centre might consider joining the survey working group and could have its ownset of questions inserted into next year’s survey. The main goal of the skills needs analysisfor the ESA is to increase the knowledge of expected changes in the labour market inorder to be able to:

� anticipate workforce recruitment for the next 2–6 months;� identify the qualification needs for planned new jobs;� identify employee shortages in particular occupations.

The latest National Report is a summary of the research that was conducted from June toNovember 2006 (in three phases) by 30 local ESA centres. This report provides short-termindicators of employers’ expectations relating to new jobs that are likely to develop in thefollowing twelve months at national level. With effect from 2007 the skill needs analysis hasbecome part of the normal activities of the employment centres and the Central Office ofESA.

The VET Centre has a considerable number of current priorities, including an evaluation ofthe revised four-year VET programmes, a complete overhaul of three-year VETprogrammes and the development of two-year programmes. Other priorities include furtherwork on the state matura exams and the final (VET) exams, quality in VET, in-serviceteacher training in VET, cooperation with social partners in the development ofqualifications/occupational standards, as well as international cooperation. Cooperationwith the social partners has been one of the main priorities of the VET Centre. However,the centre is not given sufficient resources to cover all these tasks. For example, it doesnot have sufficient advisers to cover all sectors (the construction, wood processing andgraphics/design sectors are not covered). VET Centre staff claim that, despite manyefforts, social partner organisations have not yet been responsive to the centre’s call forcooperation (a letter to the Economic Chamber remained unanswered).

Examples of good practice exist at local level, where schools cooperate with employers onthe adjustment of curricula and on in-company practical periods for students. Such periodstake the form of group site visits and a compulsory 14-day summer practice. However, thisis largely insufficient for equipping students with the necessary practical skills. Moreover,many of these school–company linkages vanished during the transition period. Ill-equippedschools are not in a position to compensate for the lack of practical training facilities. Pupilsdo participate in regular practical teaching and practice in various catering-tourismcompanies, hotels, restaurants and tourist offices in Skopje and around the country, butthere is a lack of systematic monitoring of both the companies and the schools.

On the whole, school–enterprise relations have survived on the basis of informal contacts.The main complaint from employers is about the lack of practical training (10–24 days insummer). ‘Appearing’ at the workplace seems more important than the actual work itself. Inspite of what is laid down in the VET legislation, it seems that regulations relating to thepractical period are not followed and there is no clear quality assurance mechanism.Insurance is the responsibility of the parents. One hotel company mentioned that it isvoluntarily paying the school �25 for each satisfactory placement.

45

ANNEXES

10 The eight sectors that are included in the skills needs analysis are agriculture, manufacturing, construction,trade, restaurants/hotels, transport, financial mediation and real estate, and services.

Cooperation between schools and social partners for the construction and geodetic branchis realised through company-based practical training and ‘open hours’ in the schools withproject work. Some of the pupils from the Lazar Tanev secondary tourism-catering schoolin Skopje undertake practical work in the Roma-Paris tourist agency in Skopje. TheZdravko Cvetkovski construction school in Skopje cooperates with the Gipsar-Knaufcompany. In 2004 the Knauf company donated places for practical work to the school.Since then the company has employed pupils who have graduated in specific profiles.

The peer group interviewed the owner of a small construction company with a coreworkforce of 20 permanent employees and the capacity to substantially expand this on atemporary basis depending on demand. Broadly the work involved building individual orsmall clusters of houses in the local area. The employer was a member of the advisorycommittee of the local (polyvalent) school and provided both practical placements andsubsequent employment to students. His feeling was that he had little influence on thecurriculum, but was able to help with more organisational issues, and sometimes withmaterials.

ANNEX 3: SERBIA

In January 2001 the Ministry of Education and Sports launched a reform process for theeducation system, including VET. The first wave of reforms was reflected in the Strategyand Action Plan prepared by the ministry and in the ‘Framework of Vocational EducationStrategies in Serbia’ document produced by an expert group for VET. The reform agendain education and the change process defined in the Strategy and Action Plan relied on fourmain axes:

� decentralisation of education management through a redefinition of the role of thecentral administration, and regional and local education authorities;

� democratisation through participatory involvement of the stakeholders;� improvement of the quality of education at all levels;� coordination between the education and economic sectors, especially in respect of

VET, higher education and adult education.

Legislative changes were passed in September 2001 introducing decentralisationprocedures in VET organisational structures, as well as new concepts for the managementof the schools, an increase in the role of school boards and the integration of members ofthe local community into the school board (parents’ associations, teachers’ associations).

The legislation provided for the establishment of new institutions, namely a RepublicCouncil for VET and a National VET Centre to provide support to curriculum design andimplementation, teacher training and overall monitoring, all with social partner participation.

In July 2003 the Law on the Foundations of the Education System was adopted andpublished by the government. The law introduced a broadening of VET governancethrough the nomination of tripartite bodies (e.g. a National VET Council). This meant thatall major development aspects of VET (skill needs identification, standards, curricula,teacher training, manager training, supervision of reform implementation, concepts foradults, continuing training, accreditation, a national qualification system, evaluation,assessment and research) as well as major monitoring duties were placed with the VETCentre, the executive body of the proposed VET Council.

Changes in government and priorities reduced the VET Council to a committee of theEducation Council and the VET Centre to a department in the Education DevelopmentCentre with a consequent loss of status, finance and staffing, but no reduction inresponsibilities. In other words, these bodies were effectively put on hold. As outlined in

46


Section 5 above, this resulted in a reduced and merely advisory role for social partners.However, in 2008/09 new changes of government offered fresh hope for reviving VET as apriority.

VET is currently almost 100% financed through public funds. Provision is split betweencentral financing (through the Ministry of Finance, covering salaries to teachers and otherstaff) and decentralised financing from municipalities (for equipment, materials and humanresources development). There is no direct financing set aside for adult education, thoughfive VET Pilot Centres providing continuing training have been set up.

Through the CARDS programme, collaboration between the working groups and a localthink-tank (G17) has developed and drafted an alternative model for the financing of VETin Serbia. The model has been well received, and is now included in a chapter of the policywhite paper accepted by government in 2007. This prospective model has manyadvantages, especially for initial training. It initiates the move towards output rather thaninput financing and thereby builds in an incentive that supports the effectiveness of thesystem. It also advocates efficiency gains through a more flexible approach to allocationsinstead of the current detailed focus that is based on classes. It promotes opportunities forco-financing through additional income (sales of training services) and sponsorship (byenterprises and parents).

Another specific issue relating to current financing is that the system does not differentiatebetween different kinds of education, including VET. So the more expensive elements ofthe VET system have identical allocations to general education, and schools that delivercourses in economics have the same allocation as those delivering welding. This results inschool-based work practice being neglected and the quality of VET reduced.

There are specific initiatives. The department of the State Secretary for Tourism, part ofthe Ministry of Economy, has evolved a national strategy for tourism that includes masterplans for specific districts. The location of schools (the school network) and the updating oftheir curricula are seen as important issues for achieving a modern approach to travel andtourism. The existence of the five regional adult pilot schools is seen as a good precedentto follow. EU accession funds are seen as potentially important, since money is short. Thephilosophy is one of ‘small nudges; the identification of sources for the acquisition of funds;professional help in acquiring them’.

In Serbia there is still a need to set up systemic regulation for cooperation and linksbetween vocational education representatives and all social partners and stakeholders,and to establish systemic mechanisms for the further development of VET at national level,in particular the establishment of the National Council for VET and Adult Education and theAgency for VET and Adult Education.

All sectors of the education system required attention, and until recently the main focushas been on elementary, general and higher education. It is understandable that peoplewho themselves have gained most of their values and experience from the world ofgeneral education will focus on general learning and academic ambitions.

The Ministry of Economy and Regional Development focuses on small and medium-sizedbusinesses. However, in accordance with Serbian tradition, initiatives have until nowmainly taken the form of institution building within the ministry, with the creation of theAgency for SME Development and the Agency for Foreign Investments. Very few initiativeshave been taken by the Ministry of Economy.

The socioeconomic partners are aware of VET and continuing training needs.Nevertheless, the Chamber of Commerce has closed its Department for VocationalEducation. For the moment the Chamber will focus on its own continuing training services

47

ANNEXES

for companies and will not allocate resources to the modernisation of the formal VETsystem.

The Association of Employers, with its limited resources, retains an interest in VET reform,and jointly with the two recognised trade unions has created a platform for VET policieswithin the tripartite Economic and Social Council.

The law of 2001 established both a National VET Council and a VET Centre. Political shiftshave subsumed the former into an Education Board and severely limited the role of theVET Centre. The financial analysis of CARDS VET I estimated that accomplishing thetasks set would require a budget at least five times greater than that allocated by thegovernment of the time. The development issues for both council and centre are notdissimilar to those in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (see the case study forthat country).

A key objective of the reform of education and training in Serbia is to link education toeconomic reforms. Therefore, there is a perceived need to move the focus away fromtheoretical knowledge and towards practical, applied knowledge at the secondaryeducation level. Employers, associations and economic chambers consider VET to be animportant area. Harmonising different interests through social dialogue is seen asimportant in formal vocational education as well as in the entire field of non-formaleducation and adult education.

Between 2001 and 2008 the participation of social partners in education and training policyhas been subject to the ups and downs of political processes. It is not yet defined by law,but is a matter of agreement on requirements that are defined in the (largely donor-led)reform processes, often with ministries as the main beneficiaries. Hence, the institutionsthat lead the development process also determine the extent and intensity of theparticipation of social partners, especially the participation of employers. In the field ofVET, social partners are not involved in the legal regulation of initial training or adulteducation (continuing training). They are involved only at the policy or discussion levelregarding future development. This situation is typical for both sectors (tourism andconstruction).

The main contribution of employers to the development of vocational education is theirinvolvement in designing the general development of vocational education, the strategicplanning of craft education, the definition of occupational standards, the definition ofpractice standards, final exams, the vocational matura, preparing and producing curricula,and making proposals for training programmes. Whether or not formal agreements exist, tomake a full contribution to VET social partners need to accept their responsibilities whileensuring that the necessary assistance (including financial, administrative and managerialresources) is available.

Examples of social partnership in the development of occupational standards can also befound in the implementation of the VET Reform Programme Phase I and Phase II(CARDS). In 2004 the Chamber of Commerce of Serbia and SAE (the Serbian employers’association), supported by the VET reform programme, organised ISOR (the Identificationof Sector Occupational Requirements) committees. The members were representatives offorward-looking Serbian companies in the agriculture, mechanical engineering, electricalengineering, food processing, construction and health sectors. The task of thesecommittees was to define employers’ needs and support the education and trainingexperts in defining educational profiles and occupational standards. It was also plannedthat these committees should work on a regular basis and would revise VET curriculawhen necessary.

48


One of the ISOR committees focused on the construction sector. Its findings andrecommendations were sent to the VET Centre and a request was made to update profilesand curricula. Based on these recommendations, curricula were prepared for four newconstruction profiles (pilots). Unfortunately, these committees have not beeninstitutionalised and their work ceased in 2005. The involvement of social partners in thetourism sector in the VET Reform Programme Phase II included activities in skill needsassessment and development of occupational standards. Based on the recommendations,particularly from employers, new profiles have been selected and occupational standardsprepared for these profiles. Recent changes of government and priorities will hopefully helpto restore this initiative.

There is strong engagement on the part of social partners in the construction school inBelgrade that was visited during the peer learning exercise. The school is very active indeveloping new curricula. Teachers visit companies regularly to monitor the trainingplacements of students and the in-company mentors, and use these visits to updatethemselves on new technologies and to gain feedback on new curricula. Every month acompany is invited to present new technological developments to the teachers. All currentemployers are competing for students and are very satisfied with their quality. As inCroatia, the companies offer scholarships to students, whom they subsequently employ forat least three years. Employers are on the school board, but trade unions are not activeand are normally represented by a member of the teachers’ trade union.

The Palace Hotel in Belgrade is run by teachers and students from a tourism school. It isthe only such example in Serbia and is very popular among students. It allows forextensive practical training. The system provides for regular, on-the-spot, mentorfeedback. The hotel is not seen as an ‘unfair’ competitor by other hotels because of itseducational function. Moreover, its graduates find employment in the other hotels. It is asurviving example of the ‘old’ system.

The formal organisation of the final examinations for three-year VET provision in Serbia isan interesting arrangement that applies to all pilot profiles and curricula. The ExaminationCommittee carries out an assessment of the competences attained. The committeeconsists of at least three members and three deputies. The committee members are:

� two teachers of vocational subjects, according to the educational profile to beassessed; one of them chairs the committee;

� one representative of employers or crafts enterprises in the relevant field.

The Chamber of Commerce, in cooperation with the Serbian Association of Employers andthe Institute for Educational Development/Centre for Vocational and Artistic Education(VET Centre) propose an employers’ representative to be a member of the ExaminationCommittee. Employers with whom the student has undertaken practical training cannot bemembers of the committee. The VET Centre maintains a database on committeemembers. Quite minor problems can hamper the smooth running of these arrangements.Schools may simply not be able to afford the travelling and per diem expenses of teachersfrom outside the school or of employers, especially if hotel expenses are involved. In theCARDS VET I project, experimental pilot schemes were given guarantees that they wouldbe given the sums required for the project.

As stated above, social partners in Serbia are not involved in the legal regulation of initialand adult education. Social partners are involved only at the policy or discussion levelregarding future developments. This situation is typical for both the tourism andconstruction sectors. The development of social partnership in VET has been the focus ofsome attention over much of the past two years. The Serbian Association of Employershas been engaged in reform initiatives. The most recent contributions have includedparticipation in policy development groups, inputs to conferences, and assistance in the

49

ANNEXES

drafting of occupational requirements relating to profiles in initial training. Jointly with theChamber of Commerce of Serbia they have organised branch-oriented committees toclarify demands on the initial training system. The Chamber of Commerce has beeninvolved in similar activities and has been an active participant and initiator of trainingcourses for the staff of enterprises. There are various individual examples of cooperation atthe levels of local communities and municipalities, especially in the tourism sector, but theyare not formally defined; this is also the case at regional level.

Regional branch offices of the Chamber of Commerce have initiated cooperation betweenvocational schools in those municipalities or regions in which employers were interested intourist-training initiatives. Such cooperation involved carrying out practical work, providingscholarships for students, and employing students who had graduated from vocationalschools. Although it is not formally or legally determined, the active participation of socialpartners at regional level in all discussions on the development of education has becomecommon practice. However, formal obligations remain vague.

ANNEX 4: TURKEY

There is clear awareness among social partners in Turkey that in the face of increasedglobal competition, joint efforts between the government and social partners are needed inorder to ensure that enterprises’ needs for a suitable labour force can be better met.Although the policy dialogue has been strongly steered by the government, there are alsoquite a number of bipartite initiatives. Social partners are well organised and have atradition of social dialogue going back almost 50 years. There are three main employers’organisations and three trade unions. They are organised at national level and at sectorlevel. The chambers play a more prominent role at regional level.

Legislation provides a supportive tool for social partner involvement. All the legalarrangements are aimed at developing a vision for a future Turkish education system andlabour market. The legal arrangements on vocational education are based on three acts:Law No. 3308; Law No. 4702; and the VQA (Vocational Qualifications Authority) law, whichsupports the first two laws and is intended to enhance the implementation of the EQF(European Qualifications Framework).

Law No. 3308 (1986) adopted three basic approaches for the vocational education of thelabour force in formal and non-formal vocational and technical education institutions.These are:

� apprenticeship training (dual system);� the full and part-time school system;� non-formal vocational education – professional courses.

Law No. 4702 (2001) amended some articles of Law No. 3308, principally:

� enabling students to progress to higher education;� introducing adult apprenticeships;� revising the duration of apprenticeships;� enabling enterprises to conduct skill training courses.

The Vocational Qualifications Authority (VQA) is the most important recent output of thissystem. It plans to develop a national qualifications framework and ensure thatqualifications are applied, documented and certificated in the same way for everyone.

Since the Education and Training Law of 1986, social partners have had a formal role toplay in education and training, in particular in apprenticeships and general policy

50


discussions. Turkey has established tripartite VET and employment councils at nationaland provincial levels. In 2006 the law establishing the VQA was adopted. The VQA isgoverned and financed on a tripartite basis. Its main role is to develop a Turkish nationalqualification system, including OSSBs (Occupational Standards Sector Boards) andawarding bodies for assessment and certification of qualifications. The EU project onStrengthening Vocational Education and Training (2003–07) helped to develop the practiceof social dialogue in education, in particular in terms of labour market analysis,development of standards and curriculum, and policy development.

The Ministry of National Education is fully aware of the need for and relevance of involvingthe social partners in a number of phases of the education and training process. Socialpartners are heavily involved in policy development and participate in the National VETCouncil, a decision-making body that meets once a year. They are active in proposingagenda points for the meetings, and are mainly involved at an early stage of policydevelopment. For example, the Ministry of National Education has developed its ActionPlan 2008–12 based on a participatory approach.

The 2008 Employment Package announced that the VET and Employment Councils atprovincial level are to be merged, recognising the broader perspective of education andtraining. With effect from autumn 2008 the provincial governors will chair the new councils.More activities are taking place at local level. Most have been initiated on the basis ofinformal contacts between companies and schools. The vocational schools are well awarethat it is necessary to improve communication between themselves and the social partnerswho represent particular sectors. Most contacts seem to be informal rather than formal.

Both tourism and construction are important and, up to now, rapidly growing economicsectors of the Turkish economy. Both employ over one million workers. Informality,seasonal and temporary contracts, multi-skilling and immigration of foreign workers arecommon issues. While in construction the role of social partners is important, in tourismthere is a much greater role for professional associations and the ministries. In bothsectors initiatives include the part-funding of training institutions. The situation in theconstruction and tourism sectors is shared with the other three countries of South EasternEurope. Students and parents alike share an unfavourable impression of the sectors, andthere is a consequent lack of student numbers and a sense of disadvantage from thosewho are enrolled, especially those on three-year courses.

On more general issues the social partners in Turkey, especially employers, have similaropinions to those of social partners in the other three South Eastern Europe countries thattook part in the ETF peer learning exercise. From their point of view vocational educationin Turkey suffers from three main problems.

� Graduates do not have the qualifications required by enterprises because the curriculaof vocational high schools are not sensitive to the changing workforce needs ofenterprises, and enterprises are not sufficiently involved in steering the system. Inaddition, there are shortages of graduates in certain vocations.

� Because of the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of the public system, enterprises haveto make substantial investments that are not cost-effective.

� A portion of the taxes collected from enterprises for the education system is used by thepublic sector for purposes that are outside their stated objectives. As a result the privatesector, while fulfilling its legal obligations, has to find extra funds for education from itsown resources, through their own education foundations, training centres and employeeunions.

The development of the VQA, which is steered and funded on a tripartite basis, is animportant challenge for social partnership. By choice, the Turkish qualification system isbased on voluntary participation from the social partners. In 2007 a call for tender was

51

ANNEXES

launched for establishing the Occupational Standard Board for the construction sector.While problems remain, the development of the VQA has been one of the success storiesof the EU-funded Strengthening Vocational Education and Training project.

Social partners in Turkey are aware that joint efforts between the government and socialpartners are needed to better meet the needs of enterprises for a suitable labour force.The direct organisational costs of the main employers and trade union bodies do not seemto be a major problem. Both the construction social partners and the Association of TurkishTravel Agencies (TURSAB) have been able set up their own centres to supplement publicVET provision, in order to either achieve better quality outcomes or compensate for labourshortages. Although the policy dialogue is heavily steered by the government, there arealso a number of bipartite initiatives.

The Training Centre for Construction (TES) is a good example. Employers and tradeunions in the construction sector have financed a budget of �6 million for buildings,equipment and basic staffing for a period of five years. After this period the TES issupposed to be self-funding. The curriculum for the TES is related to formal education andhas been approved by the Ministry of National Education, but does not lead to a diploma.

The main aim of the TES is to meet the needs of the skilled workforce in the sector.However, it is necessary not only to educate and train individuals, but also to assess,recognise and certify their qualifications. The TES has been preparing trainingprogrammes based on occupational standards. The Turkish Union of Road, Constructionand Building Workers (TYOL-ÝÞ) and the Turkish Employers Association of ConstructionIndustries (ÝNTES) have worked together. The costs associated directly with thesustainability of the education programmes are covered under the following headings:

� education materials and resources;� staff education and training;� establishing systems for curricula, and for assessment and certification;� management for the first five years.

The programme was initially financed by the social partners. However, it has nowestablished a self-financing education centre. It has used various financial resources inorder to survive. Unemployment funds from the Turkish Employment Service (ISKUR) arebeing used to finance the training expenses of unemployed people and those newlyemployed in the sector.

The centre aims to diversify its financial resources in the future. This is based on a numberof assumptions and expectations.

� Employers will finance the cost of assessment for those workers currently working inthe construction sector.

� The centre will develop as an employment agent and provide services for bothemployees and employers, subject to a service charge.

� It is hoped that the government will help to fund the initial costs of similar centres.

Students at the Anatolian Hotel Management and Tourism Vocational High Schoolsundertake practical training in companies from the beginning of May to the end ofSeptember, a period of 20 weeks during the tourism sector’s busiest period. Arrangementsare made for these practical placements in hotels, agencies and restaurants in March.Vocational teachers are responsible for monitoring the students during their traineeeducation.

At the end of the second year, students at the TURSAB Istanbul Anatolian HotelManagement and Tourism Vocational High School undertake their trainee education at the

52


hotels or agencies in Istanbul, and the Ankara students in Ankara. As the cities are largethere are various opportunities and consultant teachers can easily find training places,especially in Istanbul.

During the 20 weeks’ training students have three weeks’ vacation which is specified byagreement between the employer and the student. All the students are insured by theschool under Law No. 3308, and enterprises on average pay students at least two-thirds ofthe minimum wage. Students work a minimum of eight hours a day and six days a week.They can work at the front desk, or in housekeeping, cooking or serving, according to theirfield of study. As a result of this training, most students can choose the speciality in whichthey wish to be employed. During these periods the vocational teachers work asconsultants. At the end of the period of trainee education, the students have to prepare adossier relating to their training experiences.

Another example of good practice is the initiative taken by the Chamber of Commerce inEskisehir to establish a private regional vocational school. The starting point for thisinitiative was dissatisfaction with existing schools, although the Provincial EducationDirector mentioned that the schools in the region are considered to be some of the best inTurkey. The education authorities welcomed this initiative on the grounds that it contributesto the government’s goals of doubling participation in VET and increasing private schoolingfrom 2.5% to 10%.

Although the networks are widespread and well established, it seems that furtherimprovements are needed in order to ensure the effective involvement of social partners.With the current interest of social partners it is vital to find ways of creating win–winsituations, and for the Ministry of National Education to bring social partners closer to theformal education system. School governing boards could be an instrument for achievingthis. The issues limiting effective participation are cited as the reluctance of thegovernment to share power and the need for greater capacity on the part of the socialpartners to allow their effective involvement.

53

ANNEXES

ACRONYMS

CARDS Community Assistance for Reconstruction, Development and Stabilisation(Community programme to assist the Western Balkan countries)

ESA Employment Service Agency

ETF European Training Foundation

EU European Union

ILO International Labour Organisation

ISOR identification of sector occupational requirements

NGO non-governmental organisation

SME small and medium-sized enterprise

TES Training Centre for Construction

TURSAB Association of Turkish Travel Agencies

VET vocational education and training

VQA Vocational Qualifications Authority

55

BIBLIOGRAPHY

CROATIA

Agency for VET, National Strategy for the Development of the VET System in the Republic of

Croatia, Zagreb, 2008.

Central Office for Development Strategy and Coordination of EU Funds, Strategic

Development Framework 2006–2013, 2006.

Central Office for Development Strategy and Coordination of EU Funds, Operational

Programme for Human Resources Development 2007–2009, Zagreb, 2007.

Ministry of Science, Education and Sports, Education Sector Development Plan 2005–2010,2005.

Ministry of Science, Education and Sports, Basic Concepts of Croatian Qualifications

Framework, Zagreb, 2007.

Ministry of Tourism, Position and Role of Tourism in Croatian Economic Environment, Zagreb,2007.

Tourism and Service Trade Union of Croatia, Setting Up a Bipartite System of Vocational

Training for Workers in Tourism, Zagreb, 2007.

Vakanjac, N., Bakula, N., Buljan, A. and Crleni D., ‘The Involvement of Social Partners in VETand Qualification Development: Barriers and Opportunities for the republic of Croatia’,Self-study Document for Croatia, Zagreb, 2008 (unpublished).

THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

Government of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, National Strategy for the

Development of Education 2005–2015, 2006.

Government of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tourism National Strategy

2008–2012, 2007.

Janevska, V., Jovanovska-Radomska, E., Grujevska, V., Mishevski F. and Trendafilov, P.,‘The Involvement of Social Partners in VET and Qualification Development (with afocus on the Construction and Tourism sectors), Self-study Document for the Republicof Macedonia’, Skopje, 2008.

Petkovski, K. and Janevski, V., Social Partnership – Reality or Future Priority?,UNESCO/UNEVOC, Bonn, 2006.

SERBIA

Belgrade Open School, Report on Social Partners’ Role and Capacities for More Effective

Education/Training and Employment Policies in Serbia, Belgrade, 2008.

57

Government of the Republic of Serbia, National Strategy for Economic Development of Serbia

(2006–2012), Belgrade, 2007.

Government of the Republic of Serbia, National Strategy for Employment, Belgrade, 2006.

Government of the Republic of Serbia, National Strategy for Tourism, Belgrade, 2006.

Government of the Republic of Serbia, Strategy for Adult Education, Belgrade, 2006.

Government of the Republic of Serbia, VET Strategy, Belgrade, 2006.

Pualac, Z. and Maksimovic, I., The Involvement of Social Partners in VET and Qualification

Development: Barriers and Opportunities for the Republic of Serbia, Self-studyDocument for Serbia, Belgrade, 2008 (unpublished).

TURKEY

Demirer, I., Aslan, S., Erdinc, S. and Kalkan, O., Involvement of Social Partners in VET

Education Particularly in Tourism and Construction, Self-study Document for Turkey,Ankara, 2008 (unpublished).

Grand National Assembly of Turkey, Ninth Development Plan, Ankara, 2006.

Kemal Öke, M., ‘From the perspective of EU integration: employment and social dialogue inTurkey’, South-East Europe Review, 2005, pp. 17–39.

Ministry of Culture and Tourism, Tourism Strategy of Turkey – 2023, Ankara, 2007.

Ministry of National Education, Strengthening the Role of Social Partners and Social Dialogue

in Vocational Educational Education in Turkey, Ankara, 2006.

Ministry of National Education, Strategy Paper on Vocational Education and Training, Ankara,2007.

GENERAL

ETF, 'Peer learning 2008: Guide for preparation', European Training Foundation, Turin, 2008(unpublished).

European Union, 'Treaty on European Union', Articles 138 and 139 (ex 118a and 118b),Official Journal C 321E, 29 December 2006.

Kristensen, N.H., 'Peer learning to support VET reform process 2008', Thematic ConceptPaper, European Training Foundation, Turin, 2008.

Kristensen, N.H., 'Social partner participation in education, training and labour marketdevelopment', European Training Foundation, Turin, 2008.

McLeish, E.A. and Phillips, D. (eds), Processes of Transition in Education Systems,Symposium Books, Oxford, 1998.

Nikolovska, M. and Vos, A., ETF, 'ETF peer learning: From policy learning to policy change inpartner countries', ETF Yearbook 2008 – Policy Learning in Action, European TrainingFoundation, Turin, 2008, pp. 39–51.

58


EUROPEAN TRAINING FOUNDATION

SOCIAL PARTNERS IN EDUCATION AND TRAINING:FROM POLICY DEVELOPMENT TO IMPLEMENTATION

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of theEuropean Communities

2009 – 60 pp. – 21.0 x 29.7 cm

ISBN: 978-92-9157-585-5

doi: 10.2816/12889

HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS

Our priced publications are available from EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu), where youcan place an order with the sales agent of your choice.

The Publications Office has a worldwide network of sales agents. You can obtain their contactdetails by sending a fax to (352) 29 29-42758.

Copyright

photo

:U

rbanM

echanic

SOCIAL PARTNERS IN EDUCATION

AND TRAINING: FROM POLICY

DEVELOPMENT TO IMPLEMENTATION

TA

-80-0

9-1

22-E

N-C

socialpartners in education and training: from …...republic of macedonia on 1–2 december 2008,...

Documents