Rhetorics and Justifications Behind the Transfer of Dual Vocational Education and Training Policy: Insights From the Spanish Case

Abstract

In 2012, in a context of high youth unemployment and under the influence of the European Union, Spain, began adopting dual vocational education and training (VET), initiating a policy transfer process that culminated in 2022 with legislation establishing duality as a defining feature of the national VET system. This article analyses the discourses and justifications expressed by national actors, focusing on the expected benefits that supported the adoption of dual VET during this phase. This study employs a qualitative methodology combining document analysis and semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using Reflexive Thematic Analysis to ensure a structured and rigorous approach. The research focuses on governmental, business, union, and educational actors, as well as foundations promoting dual VET, with data collected at the national level and in the autonomous communities of Andalusia and the Basque Country. The analysis identifies four main justifications for the adoption of dual VET in Spain, with the first two being the most widespread: (A) as a solution to the mismatch between qualifications and labour market demands, focusing on employers; (B) as a tool to improve youth employment and reduce unemployment, focusing on young people; (C) as a catalyst for training partnerships and systemic improvement; and (D) as a tool to reduce dropout rates. The two most widespread justifications (A and B) reflect international trends and the educationalisation of economic problems. Although actors cited Central European models, critics questioned their relevance, pointing to earlier national reforms, regional labour disparities, and stronger VET outcomes than university education. Justification C presented dual VET as a tool to foster collaboration and address underinvestment in public training infrastructure. Justification D, the least prominent, associated dual VET with reducing early school leaving, an idea supported by employers and foundations but not by unions.