The national VET systems in Europe are gradually getting closer; not only due to the building up of several common frameworks – like the EQF, the CQAF etc – but more importantly through developmental work of all kinds directed at all the abolition of system rigidities of the past. Making VET modern, robust and flexible makes one of the cornerstones in the “fabrication of Europe” currently taking place (cf. Nóvoa & Lawn 2002). This paper addresses the emergence of a new kind of VET system organisation in Norway, coined Flexi-VET. The concept draws on similarities to current European debates on social inclusion / labour market politics connected to the notion of “flexicurity” (e.g. EU Commission 2006, Wilthagen & Tros 2004, Bredgaard et al 2007). Similarly to arrangements connected to “flexicurity”, the organisation of Flexi-VET foremost intends to secure citizens of Europe an open access to working life and the labour market. “Employability” represents the novel access ticket to the labour market replacing, respectively, arrangements of internal job security on the one hand or rigid vocational identities on the other (Kraus 2005). The general transformation of the European VET systems into output based curricula systems makes a keystone in this process of which the promotion of “flexiherent” work identities makes a central element. Taking Norwegian restructuring processes as an example, this paper discusses the degree to which modern VET system organisations remain adequate flexible or / and adequate robust for present work process organisations, whilst preferring, for instance, basic skills and broad competences to craftsmanship and specialisation. Questions to be asked are the following: To whom is this system flexible? Does it produce “entreployees” (Pongratz & Voss 2004) at the expense of occupational commitment? What is the composite nature of this identity? How is it gradually built up, what are the arrangements of learning trajectories preferred (cf. Dreier 1999, Wenger 1998, Nespor 1994, Skarpenes 2007)? Do they represent a broad spectre of work identities repertoires mirroring in the educational task designs a plural mixture of public values or do they to the contrary tend to narrow the scope of apprehension of the apprentices (e.g. Smith 2004, Deitmer 2007, Rauner et al 2007)? Part of this discussions also is to throw some light upon changes in the political “set up” of the VET system, including transformations of a basically trust based tripartite system into the generation of a new state led management regime of accountability (Deichman-Sørensen 1999, 2007). Flexi-VET, then, is here defined as a system essentially oriented towards continuously re-adaptations and re-regulations supposed to get maintained by all partners at all levels. The paper is based on research related to educational reforms in the domain of vocational education and training in Norway from the 1970ies till today, including recently the implementation of a national qualification framework as well as a national quality assurance system. In this research quantitative as well as qualitative methods are conducted.

Analytical discussions on institutional reframing processes in VET, including the need of reconceptualising our system descriptions.