Contradictions on the state of Vocational Education and Training (VET) and Sustainability

Written by Joana Filipa Da Silva Isaúl

The conversation summarized here emerged from a discussion among five  researchers regarding the current landscape of Vocational Education and Training (VET)  and sustainability. We wanted to synthesize our reading of the recent literature (McGrath &  Ramsarup, 2024; Ramsarup et al., 2024; Weijzen et al., 2024) in the Journal of Vocational  Education & Training, Volume 76, Issue 2 (2024) to inform our upcoming paper: What  emerged from our discussion was not a picture of a flawless transition, but rather a map of  friction between «green» rhetoric and the stubborn reality of educational practice. 

The first point of consensus in our conversation was the universality of  sustainability being treated as an accessory. The literature refers to this as the «bolt-on»  approach (Sterling, 2004, as cited in Ramsarup et al., 2024), where sustainability modules are added to existing curricula without altering the core structure of the education system.  We agreed that, regardless of geography, the character of VET remains deeply  “productivist” – there are no other ways of doing, imagining, or thinking utopically regarding  the relationship between the economy and education. The system is still designed to  prepare humans for economic growth, treating nature as an infinite resource bank. 

Even when «green skills» are introduced, they are often co-opted by a market logic  that seeks technical efficiency rather than true ecological transformation. Students are  taught to extract value from the environment more efficiently, rather than teaching them to  live and work regeneratively – the persistent character of the “extractivist” mindset is  noticeable. 

Our discussion heavily focused on structural barriers. It became clear that the  desire for reform frequently hits political and regulatory walls, sometimes translating into a  crisis of resources and time. Even though collaborations with industry are highly desired,  deep tensions might arise. We observed that industry partners often seek quick «fixes» to  defined problems, whereas true sustainability education requires «framing» complex  issues and slowing down to understand root causes. 

The geographic diversity of the papers highlighted that solutions are not linearly  reproducible. What works in a funded «Living Lab» in the Netherlands is radically different  from the reality of an agricultural college in Zimbabwe facing dual economic and  environmental crises. 

We noted that international projects navigate regulatory systems that are unequal  in power and distribution. The contributions in the special issue we reviewed are predominantly «practice-based», stories of local experiments trying to survive within systems not designed for them, rather than brand new theoretical frameworks.

We identified that there are contradictions between the narratives of educational  policy and the reality of schools. Can the EDUS framework be the tool we need to reveal  these contradictions? Instead of merely describing the failures, can we use EDUS to make  the invisible visible? If we can map these tensions using such a framework, perhaps we can  move from diagnosing the problem to identifying pathways for genuine transformation. 

Bibliography:  

McGrath, S., & Ramsarup, P. (2024). Towards vocational education and training and  skills development for sustainable futures. Journal of Vocational Education & Training,  76(2), 247–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2024.2317574 

Ramsarup, P., McGrath, S., & Lotz-Sisitka, H. (2024). A landscape view of emerging  sustainability responses within VET. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 76(2), 259– 280. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2024.2320911 

Weijzen, S. M. G., Onck, C., Wals, A. E., Tassone, V. C., & Kuijer-Siebelink, W. (2024).  Vocational education for a sustainable future: Unveiling the collaborative learning  narratives to make space for learning. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 76(2),  331–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2023.2270468