In this paper we describe common ways in which 25 countries in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Southern and Eastern Mediterranean approach the implementation of reforms in their Vocational Education and Training (VET) systems, and the typical risks to the success of these reforms. The objective of research was to determine whether there are commonalities between countries in this respect, and what lessons could be learned in support of a better, more effective transition from planning to policy action in VET as a field of renewed interest for skills development.
Our research draws on results from the Torino Process – a biennial review of VET, which countries in East and South-East Europe, Central Asia, South and East Mediterranean and the Southern Caucasus (further “partner countries”) are carrying out since 2010 under the coordination of the European Training Foundation on behalf of the European Union. The geographical scope of research was limited to 25 of the 29 countries which participated in the 2016 round of the Torino Process: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Egypt, Georgia, Israel, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kyrgyz Republic, Lebanon, Republic of Northern Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Morocco, Palestine, Russia, Serbia, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.

Our findings indicate that there are common factors in the context of VET that might create barriers to improvement in all countries, and that there are commonalities also in the ways countries address the risk of reform failure. Our analysis also suggests that difficulties in reform implementation are often of technical nature and could be addressed through better planning and a re-calibration of reform focus. 

The methodology of our research consisted of two elements: a national review, which included structured, formal process of self-reporting by partner countries with the aim of collecting and interpreting primary evidence on VET; and cross-country review of national findings, the results of which are presented in this paper. The national review was guided by an analytical framework with in-depth questions that took stock of developments in five review dimensions: vision and VET strategy, economic and labour market context of VET, socio-demographic context of VET, internal efficiency of the VET system, and VET governance. The review was implemented through a formal procedure which included national consultations, the drafting of a national reports by countries, and their validation by national stakeholders. The cross-country review included multiple rounds of scanning of the national reports to single out references to policy action and develop a keyword matrix for the collection of information on common patterns of reform implementation, the context of reform implementation in each country, and the typical priorities of reform across countries. The matrix was then used in subsequent rounds of scanning to extract the evidence needed for the cross-country analysis.

Our findings suggest that, despite country differences, reforms in VET are exposed to similar risks and that these risks are being addressed in comparable ways. That includes commonalities in the ways in which national authorities transition from delegating responsibilities for implementation and piloting reforms to a system-wide roll-out of improvement. The analysis of evidence also suggests that problems with this transition might be a major impediment to reform progress. Another finding is that lack of progress with policy action cannot always be traced back to lack of political will. Often the problems are of a technical nature and could be addressed through better planning and a recalibration of reform focus, so that VET participants have a chance to understand and endorse the reform plans and feel that these plans address their needs and concerns. This could include the creation of incentives for improvement, for instance in the form of formal recognition and support for teachers and providers who endorse change or might even be among its initiators and drivers. The lessons learned from the piloting of novel approaches (see the section on hedging against adverse conditions) could be used to demonstrate the advantages of specific reform undertakings, but these seem to still be a largely underdeveloped and unexplored source of inspiration, motivation and guidance in this respect. Finally, and closely connected to the second observation, is that the justifications for change and improvement tend to rely on difficult-to-collect evidence, which hinders proper buy-in by stakeholders and reform beneficiaries. Cases in which changes in VET manage to connect to the unmet needs and expectations of participants in VET – providers, professional staff and primary beneficiaries – are more likely to gain traction and lead to sustainable results.

Allen, J., ‘Reality Check-in: Why Education Reform Really Does Need A Reality TV Show’, Center for Education Reform, 2014. Ares Abalde, M., ‘School Size Policies: A Literature Review’, OECD Education Working Paper No. 106, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2014. Beschel, R. P. and Ahern, M. J., Public Financial Management Reform in the Middle East and North Africa: An Overview of Regional Experience, World Bank Publications, Washington, DC, 2012. Cerna, L., ‘The Nature of Policy Change and Implementation: A Review of Different Theoretical Approaches’, OECD, 2013. Cline, P. B., ‘Re-examining the Risk Paradox’: Wilderness Risk Managers, 2003. Cline, P. B., ‘The Etymology of Risk’, 2004. European Commission, ‘10 indicators on EU donor harmonisation in education for development cooperation’, 2004. European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Empowering Local Authorities in Partner Countries, COM (2013) 280 final, Brussels, 2013. European Commission, Supporting decentralisation, local governance and local development through a territorial approach, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2016. European Training Foundation (ETF), Moving Skills Forward Together – a Torino Process Cross-Country Report, European Training Foundation, Turin, 2014. European Training Foundation (ETF), Torino Process 2016–17, European Training Foundation, Turin, 2016. Gershberg, A. I., Educational Infrastructure, School Construction & Decentralization in Developing Countries: Key Issues for an Understudied Area, International Center for Public Policy, Atlanta, Georgia, 2014. Johnson, J. A., ‘Principles of Effective Change: Curriculum Revision That Works’, 2001. Joyce, P., Strategic Leadership in the Public Sector, 2nd edition, Routledge, Abingdon, 2016. Murrell, P., ‘Evolutionary and Radical Approaches to Economic Reform’, Economics of Planning, Vol. 25, 1992, pp. 79–95. OECD, Teachers Matter, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2005. OECD, Synergies for Better Learning: An International Perspective on Evaluation and Assessment, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2013. OECD, Education at a Glance 2017, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2017a. OECD, OECD Reviews of School Resources, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2017b. Prado, M. M., ‘Institutional Bypass: An Alternative for Development Reform’, SSRN Electronic Journal, April 2011. Schmitthoff, C. M., ‘Conflict Avoidance in Practice and Theory’, Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 21, 1956, pp. 429–62. Wilson, S. B. and Dobson, M. S., Goal Setting: How to Create an Action Plan and Achieve Your Goals, 2nd edition, AMACOM American Management Association, New York, 2008. Wurzburg, G., ‘Making Reform Happen in Education’, in Making Reform Happen: Lessons from OECD Countries, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2010, pp. 159–82.