All over the world, VET is delivered by an array of different institutions. The most important provider of VET in almost all countries is the state, in particular in countries with a school-based VET system. Here, initial VET (or pre-employment VET) is offered in technical secondary schools or colleges under the auspices of the ministry of education. Sometimes the state offers two strands in the system: formal VET in secondary schools which leads to certificates that provide access to higher levels of education, and non-formal VET in training centres that prepare their students for direct access to the labour market. The latter often operate under the auspices of ministries of labour or other relevant ministries, such as industry, health or tourism.
The other big player in training provision is companies. In countries with apprenticeship training they account for the major part of training delivery. In other countries they play a complementary role by offering internships for trainees.
In many developing countries NGOs play an important role in the VET system, in particular with regard to non-formal training and often with a focus on special needs groups. Sometimes they operate under a public-private partnership agreement with the government, which, for example, stipulates that the government pays the teachers and trainers, while the NGO provides the venue and equipment.
Finally, there are commercial providers that offer courses in a market environment. They usually operate in the sphere of continuous or further training (CVET). Many of them limit their training offers to occupational fields that require less investment in terms of training infrastructure. Typical examples are ICT occupations, language courses, sales, marketing, office administration and bookkeeping.
Taking into consideration the growing social demand for VET in our partner countries and the limited financial resources of the public sector it becomes obvious that the heterogeneity of the provider landscape is necessary. And a further expansion would be desirable. Having a broad range of specialised providers is also an advantage in meeting the needs of diverse special needs groups. On the other hand, the quality of the training programmes is often as diverse as the provider landscape.
There is no simple way out of this dilemma. What governments increasingly try to do is to establish a system of accreditation for VET providers that stipulates the minimum requirements a training provider has to match in order to be allowed either to operate or to issue publicly recognised certificates.
