The design of vocational education and training systems (VET) is largely shaped by institutionalised negotiation processes in which specific constellations of actors determine the strategic orientation and its implementation in practice. This usually takes place within the framework of established cooperation and governance structures and is practised over long periods of time (Mayntz/Scharpf 1995; Maag Merki/langer/Altrichter 2014).

This article focuses on apprentices/IVET learners as a central but hitherto largely neglected group of actors. Based on an analysis of three national reform and strategy processes, it examines the extent to which the VET systems in Germany, Switzerland and Denmark already integrate the perspective of learners at the conceptual level and in the normative self-image of their institutional arrangements, and open up opportunities for participation. The countries were selected on the basis of their common feature of a strongly company- and labour market-focused form of initial vocational training.

The following criteria were decisive in the selection of the processes. The processes took place in the. since 2015, they can be considered structurally formative for the respective vocational training system, and their scope encompasses both normative and institutional settings.

The selected processes are examined with regard to two aspects or criteria. Firstly, the extent to which the apprentices' perspective played a role in the course of the process, i.e. the extent to which the apprentices/IVET learners were the direct recipients of the reform or strategy activities. Secondly, the form of participation of the learners in this context is analysed.

For Germany, these are the reforms of the Vocational Training Act (BBiG) since 2015, for Switzerland the strategic initiative Agenda Berufsbildung 2030 (Vocational Training Agenda 2030) and for Denmark the reform of the vocational training system in 2015. These three processes meet the criterion of systemic relevance and their explicit objective of strategically realigning the respective VET system. All three processes mark significant political interventions in which issues of attractiveness, quality and governance of vocational education and training were addressed.

For Germany, this involves two changes to the BBiG during this period. The Act on the Modernisation and Strengthening of Vocational Education and Training (BBiMoG) of 2020 brought about extensive structural and content-related changes to the BBiG. Some of these changes directly address apprentices; for example, the minimum training allowance (§ 17 BBiG) is the first time that an income-related protection interest for apprentices has been explicitly standardised by law. Furthermore, in August 2024, the Vocational Training Validation and Digitisation Act (BVaDiG) came into force, once again modifying the BBiG with new legal instruments for digitisation and recognition of skills (Bundesrepublik Deutschland 2024).

In Switzerland, the federal government, the cantons and the organisations representing the world of work (Organisationen der Arbeitswelt, OdA) wanted to respond to social and labour market changes with the strategic initiative Vocational Training 2030 and make VET ‘fit for the future’, e.g. in terms of digitalisation, sustainability and permeability.

The 2015 reform of the Danish VET system was primarily aimed at attracting more young people to vocational training, reducing drop-out rates and improving the quality of vocational education and training programmes.

In terms of its theoretical foundation and positioning, this paper focuses on the role of apprentices/IVET learners and their opportunities for participation in the design of VET systems and can therefore be classified as educational governance research (Busemeyer/Goerres 2014; Busemeyer/Schlicht-Schmälzle 2014; Busemeyer/Trampusch 2012; Emmenegger/Graf/Strebel 2020). Based on the typology approach of skill formation systems, the article highlights why there are considerable conceptual differences within the group of so-called collective skill formation systems in terms of how learners are addressed and involved in key national design and strategy processes.

The analysis of reform and strategy processes is based on a systematic and intensive document analysis. This method makes it possible to reconstruct reform dynamics, objectives, lines of argumentation, and institutional and normative frameworks in a comparative manner. On the one hand, primary documents that were created directly in the course of the reform and strategy processes are taken into account, such as legal texts, strategy and programme papers, official reports, statements by relevant actors and accompanying evaluation documents (BOWEN 2008;ANGUS ET AL. 2013). Secondly, secondary sources are included, in particular existing scientific analyses, expert reports and synthesis reports that contextualise, evaluate or historically classify the respective reform processes (SCHREIER 2014). The documents are evaluated using a theoretically guided category system, which is both deduced from the state of research and the guiding questions and developed inductively in the course of the analysis (KUCKARTZ 2010; MAYRING 2022). The aim is to identify the central objectives and control logics of the reform processes and to make them systematically comparable. By combining internal reform documents and external analytical literature, the aim is to triangulate perspectives, taking into account both the intended goals and self-descriptions of the reform actors and their scientific classification and critical reflection. This approach helps to increase the comparability of the education systems under investigation and to empirically validate the analysis.

We argue that there are clear differences between the three countries regarding the conceptual anchoring and functional role of IVET learners within the governance of their initial training systems. In Germany, reforms increasingly emphasise individualisation and protection, but they do not amount to a comprehensive participatory reorientation of the BBiG. Rather than explicitly incorporating trainees as actors through legal measures, the focus lies on systemic framework conditions and structural modernisation, such as training duration, examination formats and training content. Although parliamentary debates addressed potential improvements for apprentices – including a minimum training allowance, strengthened rights for youth and apprentice representatives, and barrier-free complaint mechanisms – these were not incorporated into the core of the 2015 reform (DEUTSCHER BUNDESTAG 2024). In Switzerland, while IVET learners are not explicitly addressed in the mission statement of ‘Vocational Education and Training 2030’, their perspective is central to the strategic guidelines. The initiative promotes a paradigm shift from labour-market-driven training towards individual development opportunities, positioning learners as active designers of their educational pathways (SEUFERT 2018). Although governance remains dominated by institutional actors, particularly OdAs, learner-centredness is increasingly recognised as a legitimate and strategic approach. This is reinforced by institutionalised monitoring instruments that systematically capture learners’ experiences and feed them into political decision-making. Denmark provides the most explicit example of legally embedding the learner perspective. Improving learners’ well-being and satisfaction was established as a core objective of the reform, accompanied by legally mandated monitoring of learner satisfaction. The resulting data serves as a basis for policy measures aimed at improving training quality and reducing dropout rates (HIPPACH-SCHNEIDER/GROBE-RATH 2024). Overall, the analysis demonstrates substantial differences in how apprentices are addressed and perceived by dominant actors in VET policy-making, even across structurally similar vocational training systems.

Angus, L., Golding, B., Foley, A., & Lavender, P. (2013). Promoting ‘learner voice’ in VET: developing democratic, transformative possibilities or further entrenching the status quo? Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 1–15. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. Gesetz zur Modernisierung und Stärkung der beruflichen Bildung (2020). Berufsbildungsvalidierungs- und -digitalisierungsgesetz (2024). Busemeyer, M. R., & Goerres, A. (2014). Varieties of Capitalism, Education and Inequalities in Political Participation. SSRN Electronic Journal. Advance online publication. Busemeyer, M. R., & Schlicht-Schmälzle, R. (2014). Partisan power, economic coordination and variations in vocational training systems in Europe. European Journal of Industrial Relations, 20 (2014), No 1, p. 55-71. Busemeyer, M. R., & Trampusch, C. (2012). The Comparative Politcial Economy of Collective Skill Formation. In M. R. Busemeyer & C. Trampusch (Eds.), The political economy of collective skill formation (pp. 3–38). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Deutscher Bundestag (2024). Anhörung Bundesvalidierungs- und -digitalisierungsgesetz. Retrieved from https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2024/kw23-pa-bildung-berufsbildungsvalidierungsgesetz-1004006? Emmenegger, P., Graf, L., & Strebel, A. (2020). Social versus liberal collective skill formation systems? A comparative-historical analysis of the role of trade unions in German and Swiss VET. European Journal of Industrial Relations, 26(3), 263–278. Hippach-Schneider, U., & Grobe-Rath, J. (2023). The apprentice perspective: A blind spot in the governance of VET systems? A German-Danish-Swiss comparison. In V. Tūtlys, L. Vaitkutė, & C. Nägele (Chairs), 5th International VET Conference Crossing Boundaries. Symposium conducted at the meeting of VETNET, Kaunas. Hippach-Schneider, U., & Grobe-Rath, J. (2024). Die Perspektive der Auszubildenden in Monitorings der Berufsbildungspolitik: Eine vergleichende Analyse von Dänemark, Deutschland und der Schweiz. Berufsbildung in Wissenschaft Und Praxis BWP, 2024(4), 48–51. Kuckartz, U. (2010). Einführung in die computergestützte Analyse qualitativer Daten (3., aktualisierte Aufl.). Lehrbuch. Wiesbaden: VS Verl. für Sozialwiss. Maag Merki, K., Langer, R., & Altrichter, H. (Eds.) (2014). Educational governance: Bd. 17. Educational Governance als Forschungsperspektive: Strategien, Methoden, Ansätze. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Mayntz, R., & Scharpf, F. W. (1995). Der Ansatz des akteurszentrierten Institutionalismus. In R. Mayntz & F. W. Scharpf (Eds.), Gesellschaftliche Selbstregelung und Steuerung (pp. 39–72). Frankfurt am Main: Campus. Mayring, P. (2022). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken. Weinheim: Beltz. Schreier, M. (2014). Varianten qualitativer Inhaltsanalyse: Ein Wegweiser im Dickicht der Begrifflichkeiten. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 15(1). Seufert, S. (Mai 2018). Flexibilisierung der Berufsbildung im Kontext fortschreitender Digitalisierung: Bericht im Auftrag des Staatssekretariats für Bildung, Forschung und Innovation SBFI im Rahmen des Projekts «Berufsbildung 2030 – Vision und Strategische Leitlinien».