More than in the past, educational institutions have to focus on education yields and transparency and to integrate this in their operations. Also students and parents pay more attention to these matters nowadays. Benchmarking is a method for systematically comparing performance, based on agreed indicators, with the aims of improving activities and learning from each other (Jansen et al., 2009). But we also have to realise that performance information can be used in different ways (Moynihan, 2009): as a way to improve results (targeted), as a sort of ritual (passive), as a way in which external actors try to get a picture of the performance of the organisation (politics), and that it can be distorted because of the pressure to have good results (perverse).  
VET in the Netherlands uses a nation-wide instrument for benchmarking since 2006. With this benchmarking instrument educational institutions compare school success rates,  student satisfaction and their financial position (liquidity and solvency). Almost all VET institutions participate in the ‘Benchmark MBO’.

The Centre for Expertise in VET (ecbo) examined the functioning of this benchmark and discussed the subject in European perspective. The main research question was: How do institutions use the ‘Benchmark MBO’ and to what extent does benchmarking contribute to learning from each other and improving the quality of education?

Our report is meant to support the ongoing work of VET institutions to reflect on and strengthen quality improvement. It shows how benchmarking may help them in this.
The results show that the Benchmark MBO appears particularly important for internal purposes. Differences between institutions lead to investigating causes of poor results, discussions about choices, and improvement of policy. The fact that the outside world also sees the results leads to a sense of urgency to take action if the results are below average. However, schools attach less value to the external function of the Benchmark MBO, although they state that it provides an opportunity for positive press for either the institution or for the entire VET sector.

In other European countries the use of benchmarking in VET as a method for systematically comparing performance of VET institutions, based on agreed indicators, seems to be limited. We did find in Finland and Denmark examples of good practice where benchmarking is used to improve quality assurance. To put the results in the Netherlands in a European perspective, we will also compare the results in the Netherlands with those examples of ‘good practice’ , in order to discuss the dilemmas of benchmarking in VET systems.

Esch, W. van, Groenenberg, R., Petit, Regina & Venne, L. van de (2012). Hoe groen is het gras bij de buren? Utrecht: ecbo. Jansen, J.S. (2009). In Thije, S. ten, Pieterson, W., Dijk, J. van, & Jansen, J. (2010). Balans in benchmarking. Enschede: Universiteit van Twente. Moynihan, D.P. (2009). Through A Glass Darkly: Understanding the Effects of Performance Regimes. Madison: University of Wisconsin/La Follette School of Public Affairs. Petit, R., Esch, W. van, Venne, L. van de & Groenenberg, R. (2012). Leren of profileren? In Meso Magazine, nr 185, 2012. Danmark: http://pub.uvm.dk/2008/vetquality2/kap03.html Finland: http://www.eqavet.eu/gns/about-eqavet/network-members/national-reference-points/finland.aspx