Dealing with European policy is a contested field from both, research and practical perspectives. However, EU policy touches on numerous everyday topics and thus plays ‘a central role in society’ as this year’s Call for Papers states. This is particularly true in the field of VET. For example, EU VET policy (European Vocational Education and Training policy) promotes the individual mobility of VET learners, apprentices, teachers, trainers as well as VET providers’ staff across European countries. Other examples refer to implementation of the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) or the shift to learning outcomes. All of these instruments and policies are designed to foster VET and support the development of a highly skilled workforce within Europe. Here we understand policy tools and instruments as ‘the techniques of governing that help define and achieve policy goals. These different terms broadly describe the same phenomena, although they are sometimes used to refer to slightly different aspects of policy means’ (Bali et al. 2021, 295)

However, it is often difficult to illustrate and exemplify the added value of such instruments and policies when it comes to providing VET programmes in everyday life. VET providers, teachers and trainers therefore face challenges when implementing the core ideas of EU VET policy tools and instruments and strategies into their daily work. In addition, the proliferation of initiatives, measures and tools of EU VET policy presents a challenge, as it is difficult for VET stakeholders to keep track of the multitude of instruments available to them.

Against this background, the paper addresses three objectives: First, to explore whether and how EU VET policy is addressed in VET programs in EU countries and how this is related to policy diffusion. Second, to contribute to a better understanding of EU VET policy and thus to improve the image of EU VET policy. Third, our motivation is to exchange the challenges and opportunities arising from the implementation and application of EU VET policy tools and instruments at the organisational level, including the perspectives of VET teachers’ and trainers’ as well as the ones of VET providers’ staff.

From a theoretical viewpoint, the practical implementation of EUVET Tools and instruments refers to the discourse on European integration at the crossroads to educational policy diffusion (e.g. Bulmer/Padgett 2004; Jakobi 2012; Radaelli 2004). Whereas policy transfer, as well as policy diffusion refers to the intended adoption and spread of reforms and ideas from other countries, regions, and (political) contexts, European integration describes the political process of unification, harmonization and coherence of living conditions, political regulations, and governance structures in Europe. Although neither topic originates from educational contexts, they can both provide an in-depth understanding of education policy in multilevel governance structures such as the European Union. Coupling policy diffusion and European integration provides innovative ideas and approaches to understanding education policy and its diffusion in multilevel governance systems being challenged by issues of national sovereignty and attempts with supranational harmonization (Cabus/de Witte 2012; Milana/Klatt 2019). In that context, discussions on education policy in general and the diffusion of EU VET policy tools and instruments in particular become relevant.

The paper derives from a current Erasmus+/KA project which is funded by the European Commission.

From a methodological viewpoint, we start with a review of existing literature on EU VET policy and its implementation at VET providers’ level and embed our findings in the discourse on policy diffusion. We compare and contrast respective concepts based on desk research. Then, we turn to the results from a qualitative study which aimed at anaylsing the application of EU VET policy tools and instruments and with a focus on geographical mobility of VET staff and students as a particular type of internationalisation. In order to do so, four organisations from the Northern, Central and Southern regions of Europe hosted focus groups to cover perspectives from various regions as aspects of VET in Europe. These countries include a) one VET provider in Greece working at the interface of VET and adult education, b) one VET provider in Portugal which is also active in training of trainers, c) one Association of Adult Education from Estonia, and d) a higher education institution from Germany providing both, initial VET and VET teacher training. In November 2024, all four project partners ran focus groups (n=4) and additional individual written and oral interviews (n=3) with national VET teachers, trainers and providers were conducted. The aim of these focus groups and interviews was to explore several core questions: - Which EUVET policy tools and instruments are the interviewees familiar with and/or which ones do they use in their working context? - What challenges do they face when working with European VET tools and instruments (e.g., EQF, validation guidelines, mobility programs)? - What specific needs do the VET providers have as regards the implementation of EU VET policy tools and instruments? All focus groups and interviews were transcribed and followed the same structure to ensure comparability of data. Next, resulting from a qualitative content analysis we identify those tools and instruments which are at the core of VET providers’ daily work and provide insights into their perspectives on these tools and instruments based on a SWOT analysis. Dominating tools and instruments are Erasmus+/KA1 (individual learners mobility), the Europass and the European Qualifications Framework. Findings provide insights into a) how VET providers, teachers and trainers apply those tools and instruments, good practices they apply and national perspectives on the use of EU VET policy tools and instruments.

Resulting from a qualitative content analysis we identify those tools and instruments which are at the core of VET providers’ daily work and provide insights into their perspectives on these tools and instruments based on a SWOT analysis. Dominating tools and instruments are Erasmus+/KA1 (individual learners mobility), the Europass, and the European Qualifications Framework. Findings provide insights into a) how VET providers, teachers and trainers apply those tools and instruments, good practices they apply and national perspectives from four European countries on the use of EU VET policy tools and instruments. With respect to our theoretical framework, this paper contributes to policy diffusion seen from a practical viewpoint and from VET providers’ and their staff’s perspective. It thus addresses a core limitation of the discourse on policy transfer which has been mostly seen from a macro perspective so far.

Bali, A. S.; Howlett, M.; Lewis, J. M.; Ramesh, M. (2021): Procedural policy tools in theory and practice. Policy and Society, 40(3), 295–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2021.1965379 Bulmer, S.; Padgett, S. (2005): Policy Transfer in the European Union: An Institutionalist Perspective. In: British Journal of Political Science, 35(1), 103–126. Cabus, S. J.; de Witte, K. (2012): Naming and Shaming in a ‚Fair‘ Way. On Disentangling the Influence of Policy in Observed Outcomes. In: Journal of Policy Modeling. 34(5), 767–787. Jacobi, A. (2012): International organisations and policy diffusion: the global norm of lifelong learning. In: Journal of international Relations and Development, 15, 31–64 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1057/jird.2010.20 Milana M.; Klatt G. (2019): Governing Adult Education Policy Development in Europe. In: McGrath S.; Mulder M.; Papier J.; Suart R. (eds.): Handbook of Vocational Education and Training. Cham: Springer, 789–812. Radaelli, C.M. (2000): Policy Transfer in the European Union: Institutional Isomorphism as a Source of Legitimacy. In: Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration, 13(1), 25–43.