Pathways from technical and vocational education and training (TVET) to higher education are in particular challenging for vocational qualifications derived from the apprenticeship systems compared to school-based TVET. Often, pathways for apprenticeship graduates are limited, time-consuming and confusingly regulated (Knight et al., 2022; for Germany Freitag et al., 2011; for Norway Schmees et al., 2024). Additionally, upper secondary level apprenticeship routes, in many countries, are taken by disadvantaged groups, e.g., in relation to class, gender and/or race. Enabling pathways to higher education from apprenticeship routes is therefore also closely related to social mobility.
From our perspective the challenge of transition mainly has been identified at the structural, organisational and individual levels. On a structural level, student access to higher education marks the central concept that widens or closes possibilities for permeability between TVET and higher education (e.g., Bernhard, 2019, pp. 132–134). However, even in countries where TVET is regarded as rather prestigious, first and foremost, Austria, Germany and Switzerland, direct access is the exception rather than the rule. On the organisationallevel, recognition of prior learning (RPL) as well as connections between TVET and higher education institutions are central concepts seen to enable permeability (Bernhard, 2019, pp. 132–134; Frommberger & Schmees, 2022). Unfortunately, these connections are insufficiently established in common practice. On the individual level, students in TVET in most countries have a working-class background. Universities and in particular prestigious ones are either not accepting those students or are not prepared for the diversity that follows their admission (Avis & Atkins, 2017; Banscherus et al. 2016, p. 9; Schröder & Dehnbostel, 2019, pp. 19–20).
Our study is based on the normative assumption that educational progression of individual subjects should not be limited due to external factors outside of their educational capabilities, e.g. structural barriers, organisational gate keepers as well as class, gender and/or race. Those barriers, external to education, violate the very core of educational thought which is to develop each and everyone’s potential.
The aim of our paper is to compare pathways from different apprenticeship models in Germany, Norway and England to higher education in these systems. This is done in the context of the question, to which extent TVET systems in England, Germany and Norway support or hinder progression from apprenticeships to higher education. We are specifically looking at three different apprenticeship models that, by and large, can be defined as pathways where access to qualifications is mediated by the labour market. In England, these routes are increasingly fragmented routes combining company-based learning with institution-based studies in varying ways across occupational orientations and levels of study (Esmond, 2020; Esmond & Atkins, 2022). In Germany, a parallel or ‘dual’ apprenticeship model combines school-based and company-based learning (Frommberger & Schmees, 2024), while in Norway, the sequential apprenticeship is characterised by successive phases in a TVET school and the workplace (Smeplass & Schmees, 2023; Virolainen & Tønder, 2018). Based on these differences, we systematically identify pathways to higher education in the respective countries by defining three distinct routes (direct, via general education and via higher TVET). This leads us to the core research question: How do apprenticeship models in England, Germany, and Norway shape pathways to higher education?

The primary research method is a comparative case study analysis (Kroon & Sturm, 2007) involving Germany, England, and Norway. In this approach, cases are firstly analysed in-depth before a comparison is carried out. The selection of these cases is based on their distinct VET structures and contextual differences, which provide a diverse set of cases for comparison (Gerring 2007, p. 89), in order to take into account the different models of apprenticeships’ impact on the transition to higher education. This way, we can detect variations due to the design of the apprenticeship models. We, therefore, refer to apprenticeship models in England, Germany and Norway comparatively as for their different apprenticeship designs: In England, apprenticeship routes are increasingly fragmented combining company-based learning with institution-based studies in varying ways across occupational orientations and levels of study; for Germany, the dual apprenticeship can be characterised as a parallel company-based and school-based structure; and in Norway, the sequential model with successive phases in school and corporations. For all three cases, the apprenticeships at EQF level 4 constitute the starting qualification from which the imagined apprenticeship graduate ought to progress to higher education. To make the case studies more comparable, we control for the three routes: (1) direct routes from apprenticeships to higher education where no additional time has to be invested in a formal qualification, (2) routes via general education (in Germany, as part of the TVET system) on the same qualification level have to be added to the existing apprenticeship qualification before entering higher and (3) routes via higher TVET qualifications. Additionally, our investigation takes into account increasingly stratified higher education. Often, even if permeability is granted for apprenticeship graduates, the accepting higher education institutions are of comparatively lower value. Therefore, it is important to also consider the destination of the routes from apprenticeship to higher education.

The case studies indicate that an increasing number of routes are being established to enable individuals with Apprenticeship qualifications to access higher education. These case studies revealed that, depending on individual circumstances and specific aspirations, accessible pathways exist; however, nearly all involve some loss of time and certain opportunity costs. When additional qualifications are required between completing training and entering higher education, this often entails financial and time-related burdens. Such barriers can be particularly challenging for individuals with low socio-economic status. Other hindering factors include a lack of information or family responsibilities (e.g., caregiving duties). Comparing the three cases, we can see that despite differences, pathways from apprenticeships to higher education are still challenging in all three cases. In no case whatsoever the access from apprenticeships to higher education is straightforward. As for England, bridging provision as a way of lateral entry towards higher education requires work experience. Furthermore, students on those pathways often felt like their knowledge was not appreciated. In Germany, while there is a possibility to enter higher education with an apprenticeship after some years of work experience and a university-specific admission test, the regulations are very confusing. For Norway, we discussed two possible lateral entries from apprenticeship to higher education. While the innovative Y Pathway is limited to areas of skills shortage, the 23/5 Rule, similarly to Germany, entails a highly complex admission procedure that is ultimately decided by universities case-by-case.

Avis, J., & Atkins, L. (2017). Youth transitions, VET and the ‘making’ of class: Changing theorisations for changing times? Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 22(2), 165–185. Banscherus, U., Bernhard, N., & Graf, L. (2016). Durchlässigkeit als mehrdimensionale Aufgabe. Bedingungen für flexible Bildungsübergänge. FES. Bernhard, N. (2019). Supporting the needs of vocationally qualified students. Changes towards institutional permeability in Germany? Formation emploi, 146(2), 129–147. Esmond, B. (2020). Emerging apprenticeship practitioner roles in England: Conceptualising the subaltern educator. Vocations and Learning 13, 179–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-019-09233-0 Esmond, B., & Atkins, L. (2022). Education for a polarising world: Between technical elites and welfare vocationalism. Routledge. Freitag, W., Hartmann, E. A., Loroff, C., Stamm-Riemer, I., Völk, D., & Buhr, R. (2011). Gestaltungsfeld Anrechnung. Hochschulische und berufliche Bildung im Wandel. Waxmann. Frommberger, D., & Schmees, J. K. (2022). Durchlässigkeit zwischen beruflicher und akademischer Bildung: Kooperative Hochschulangebote im internationalen Vergleich. In A. Wolter, & C. Kerst (Eds.), Studierfähigkeit beruflich Qualifizierter ohne schulische Studienberechtigung: Studienvoraussetzungen, Studienverläufe und Studienerfolg (pp. 67–81) SpringerVS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-35429-9_4. Frommberger, D, & Schmees, J. K. (2024). Deutschland. Internationales Handbuch der Berufsbildung (Vol. 59). BIBB Gerring, J. (2007). Case Study Research. Principles and Practices. Cambridge University Press. Knight, L., Bathmaker, A.-M., Moodie, G., Orr, K., Webb, S., & Wheelahan, L. (2022). Equity and access to high skills through higher vocational education. Springer. Kroon, S. & Sturm, J. (2007). International Comparative Case Study Research in Education: Key Incident Analysis and International Triangulation. In W. Herrlitz, S. Ongstad & P.-H. van de Ven (Eds.), Research on MTE in a comparative international perspective – theoretical and methodological issues (pp. 99–118). Rodopi. Schmees, J. K., Smeplass, E., Skålholt, A., Hovdhaugen, E., & Imdorf, C. (2024). Pathways to higher education for vocationally qualified students. The case of Norway. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2024.2384165 Schröder, T., & Dehnbostel, P. (2019). Equity and Access to High Skills Through Higher Vocational Education. In S. McGrath, M. Mulder, J. Papier, & R. Suart (Eds.), Handbook of Vocational Education and Training (pp. 603–625). Springer. Smeplass, E., & Schmees, J. K. (2023). Stärken und Herausforderungen des sequenziellen Systems der Berufsausbildung in Norwegen. Berufsbildung, 3(2023), 54–57. https://doi.org./10.3278/BB2303W016 Virolainen, M., & Tønder, A. H. (2018). Progression to higher education from VET in Nordic countries : Mixed policies and pathways. In C. H. Jørgensen, O. J. Olsen, & D. P. Thunqvist (Eds.), Vocational Education in the Nordic Countries: Learning from Diversity (pp. 51–73). Routledge.