Bridging gaps in vocational education and training systems in Norway

ABSTRACT

More than half of the youth in upper-secondary education in Norway choose programmes in vocational education and training. There is a larger risk of marginalisation in VET than in other educational programmes. One challenge facing VET is the mismatch between students’ vocational education and the companies` need for apprenticeships. It is found that a great number of students lack apprenticeship after the second year in school, another matter of concern is the related risk of marginalisation connected to students’ social backgrounds. We explore how a local vocational education and training (VET) system in Norway addresses the risk of marginalisation. With a focus on marginalisation and Luhmann’s system theory lens, we understand that a local VET is divided into several more or less autopoietic subsystems which communicate different meanings regarding the risk of marginalisation. We investigate how marginalisation is addressed within different subsystems in VET, by using a case study that includes interviews with important stakeholders at an upper-secondary school, a training agency, and companies. The results from the case study reveal that different rationalities may lead to difficulties in constructing integration between education and the labour market. However, through communication, ideas can be translated and overbridge system differentiation and mutual communication regarding how marginalisation can be decreased.

KEYWORDS:

• Vocational education and training
• marginalisation
• system
• organising

Introduction

In this article, we explore how a dual vocational education and training- (VET) system, addresses the risk of marginalisation among students through its organisation. We seek to understand how it is possible to address and hinder the risk of marginalisation within a compound system, where different organisations answer to diverse rationality. VET according to the official national Norwegian VET system consist of several organisations, the school, the training agency, and companies. In Norway, the training agency is an institution within the VET system that is assigned to coordinate the supply and demand of apprenticeships involving both education and the market. The training agency solves or compensates for contradictions between market needs and students’ educational preferences, by recruiting companies to take on apprenticeships as well as guiding apprentices between companies (Høst et al. 2014; Jørgensen 2018).

In our research, this VET system is seen as a system of communication on marginalisation, intertwined by its interaction with each other, and its institutional environment. The environment of the VET system is complex, and since different organisations in the VET system respond to different environments (school environment and the market) it makes sense to speak about different subsystems within VET. A system cannot exist without its environment since it is the boundaries of binary codes that include and excludes communication and gives the system meaning. Hence, the environment is an intern premise for the system’s own processes and the sub-systems within VET constantly communicate their own meaning, reproducing themselves autopoietically to transform external uncertainty into internal certainty (Luhmann 2018). We seek to understand how the subsystems within VET address and manage to communicate the risk of marginalisation while their rationalities of the educational system and the market system may differ (Jørgensen 2004).

In the Norwegian dual VET model, upper-secondary schools are responsible for providing 2 years of education, while companies are responsible for providing final training, which ends with a trade exam that ideally leads to a European Qualification Framework Level 4 qualification (Cedefop n.d.). The counties are obligated to provide students with relevant apprenticeships, remunerate employers for hiring apprentices, and organise the final exam, which is a requirement for graduation (The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training 2021).

In Norway, more than half of all students enter VET in upper-secondary education. Seventy percent of the students in VET complete their education within 5 to 6 years in comparison to 89% of students in general education (Statistics Norway 2022). The risk of marginalisation in VET is higher than in other programmes in upper-secondary schools, and a clear cumulative connection exists between parents’ educational levels and students’ accomplishments (Statistics Norway 2022). Socioeconomic backgrounds are an important factor in all education (Beach and Sernhede 2011; Knudsen 2021). Students from less privileged socioeconomic backgrounds choose VET more often than students who come from more privileged socioeconomic backgrounds. Ethnic background and gender are also important factors affecting the risk of marginalisation in VET and contributing to a gender-segregated labour market (Statistics Norway 2022).

The dual VET system has a complicated organisational design that includes several critical transition points from education to apprenticeships (Michelsen et al. 2021). Generally, dual VET is seen as a successful model to integrate young people into the labour market. The gradual socialisation and the learning of specific professional skills is important factors for the transition from school to work. Yet, a significant risk of marginalisation in Norway occurs in the transition from the second year of education to the next year of training (Falch and Nyhus 2009). One plausible explanation is a shortage of apprentice placements, which is considered a key part of completing VET, another is that students switch from VET to the third supplementary year to gain access to higher education (Tønder and Aspøy 2017). Among students whose parents’ educational background is secondary school, only 35% fulfil their education within 5 years. Moreover, among male students with immigrant backgrounds, only 29% fulfil their education within 5 years (Statistics Norway 2023). In Norway, the average age of completion is 28 years, which is one of the highest ages among OECD countries (Tønder and Aspøy 2017). The risk factors of marginalisation in VET, described, might cause a weaker attachment to the labour market, and hindrances to entering the labour market are often related to other forms of exclusion in society (De Witte and Rogge 2013; Halvorsrud 2017). Therefore, it is important to understand how VET system addresses the risk of marginalisation among students. We understand there is a continuing dichotomy between school and work emphasising different goals, rationales, cultures, and knowledge (Rintala and Nokelainen 2020). Education and work have, historically, evolved independently, each with its own distinct purpose: a school rationale and a production rationale. The shift in learning from institutions to the workplace has reversed a century-long trend in industrialised countries, where work-based education became progressively integrated with general education. In vocational training and education, the school and the workplace anticipate a connection between education and work. Vocational schools have a primary goal of equipping students with the necessary skills to succeed in their future work roles. Meanwhile, companies rely on external training and education to support their organisational development and enhance efficiency. Despite numerous attempts to enhance cooperation, both parties frequently report that it is ineffective (Esmond 2018; Jørgensen 2004). Apprenticeship is therefore seen as a way of overbridging the rationality between education and the labour market. In this context, the question of integrating differentiated systems arises.

In Norway, concerns regarding the completion of VET have been taken. One example is the Norwegian government’s effort to implement a ‘completion reform’ (Ministry of Education and Research 2021). Earlier research points out that in preventing risks of marginalisation VET systems have been pressured into promoting high-quality competence and social mobility to improve the matching of individual students to the labour market (Jørgensen 2018; Utvær and Saur 2019). The impact of learning environments on skills and competencies, as highlighted by Speake (2007) and Aspøy and Nyen (2016), underscores the importance of considering personal characteristics. Speake (2007) emphasises that formal VET in Europe offers skills beyond the technical, while the learning environment supports personal insights relevant to daily social activities. Aspøy and Nyen (2016) and Ceelen et al. (2021) underlines the need for follow-up support in workplace learning for professional and social requirements. Building strong relationships among counsellors, students, and teachers enhances networks and knowledge in VET, bridging gaps between different systems.

In Norway, the opportunity for students to carry out work practice at a company during the first 2 years of VET can lead to an apprenticeship or provide a relevant work reference. The local region, and the characteristics of inhabitants’ social backgrounds, as well as work opportunities in the labour market, are important factors to consider regarding the completion of VET (Rusten and Hermelin 2017). In that respect, Sabates, Salter, and Obolenskaya (2012) states that relationships between students and mentors with connection to the labour market are important. Research finds that personal engagement of staff, learning environment, mentoring at different levels, workplace engagement, independency, and problem-solving provide means for completion of VET (Rusten and Hermelin 2017; Sabates et.al.; Sabates, Salter, and Obolenskaya 2012).

As for the concept of marginal it is on the one hand related to the division of political space understood as an inside and outside and on the other as Young (1990) argues it also connects with the idea of work being a valuable activity. A person is understood in terms of marginal when his/her role/function is outside of what is considered a common good. Young defines a common good as being of a normative and exclusive character based on the beliefs of the dominant group of society (Young 1990). In reference to VET in Norway, we suggest that for a dominant group of a society a common good indicates that the youngsters of VET complete their vocational education attempting to attract the labour market. By completing their intended education, the young can hopefully find employment within their field thus contributing to the upholding of the welfare state as well as the labour market. We find a similar line of thought represented through the European Council (2006) when it assigns education and training to create jobs and growth to develop the EU’s long-term potential where vocationalism will produce young people ‘able and willing to fit the demands of the labor market’ (European Council 2006, 8). Even if a normative perspective on marginalisation can guide our understanding of political objectives Young (1990) argues there are limitations to the idea of a (democratic) common good since human arrangements are complex and can comprise both exclusion and inclusion (Young 1990). VET is neither a matter of only contributing to the welfare state or the labour market, it is also a concern of institutions, teachers, trainers, and students in reference to personal revenues. On the topic of marginalisation and institutions Luhmann (2002) finds that each functional system arranges its own inclusion, without any regard to other functional systems, meaning that it is possible for a student to be included in school, but excluded from training and labour market. Hence, in agreement with Young we concur being at risk of marginalisation is not only a matter of a normative common good, but we also understand it as a result of circumstance. From an educational research point of view, the consideration of circumstances gives the researcher possibility to carry out a further investigation on risks of marginalisation in VET (Lopez-Fogues 2016).

Our contribution to the VET research field will focus on different sub-systems communication to interfere risk of marginalisation of students in VET complemented with a sociological approach (Anderson 2008; Misra 2011). As shown in the introduction, we know that there are severe risks of marginalisation for certain groups within VET, and the most critical point for marginalisation is between school and apprenticeship. The transition between a school rationale and a production rationale (Jørgensen 2004) stresses interaction and overbridging between sub-systems in VET to address the risk of marginalisation. Luhmann’s theory of social systems turns out to be fruitful while understanding how different sub-systems create meaningful communication on the risk of marginalisation, based on their own rationale as well as understanding the over-bridging between sub-systems in the dual VET-system. The concepts of social system, environment, communication, meaning, autopoiesis, and inclusion/exclusion are of central importance here.

The dual VET system has a complicated organisational design that includes several critical transition points from education to apprenticeships that might be subject to marginalisation of students. Turning to the theories of Luhman we ask the following question: ‘How does a VET system address the risk of student marginalization?’

Theoretical framework of social systems

VET in Norway is a complex educational system that is linked to several organisations and institutions in the public and private sectors. Through our theoretical framework, we investigate a social system, including several subsystems and communication networks. In this article, we deal with three sub-systems, a school, a training agency, and companies/institutions. All these sub-systems operate under different rationales and construct different communication networks of inclusion and exclusion (Jørgensen 2004; Luhmann 1995; Qvortrup and Qvortrup 2018).

Social systems´ are meaningful contexts that contain social actions that refer to each other, delimit themselves in relation to the outside world, and operate in relation to a set of meaningful principles. A system is seen as autopoietic since action refers to actions that are responding to a specific need connected to meaning. From the perspective of an observer, a system can be understood as a form, as it outlines and excludes its environment. It manifests itself as a compulsive arrangement where interconnected operations both emerge and define the compatibility of subsequent operations in an ongoing process (Luhmann 2002).

For an organisation to survive, it must navigate the complexities of its environment while preserving its own meaning and fulfilling its function (Luhmann 2018). When a system faces pressure in a complex environment, it can respond by rejecting the pressure, expanding its frames, or undergoing system differentiation (Luhmann 1995). To differentiate a subsystem, it is necessary to identify the distinction between the system and its environment. However, even when a unit is differentiated, it still needs to maintain its coherence as a unit, exhibiting unity among its parts (Baraldi and Corsi 2017). Thus, differentiation involves the formation of systems within systems.

The operation of a social system consists of communication which always includes selected information. The communication contains information, messages, and understanding and is accomplished through linguistic and physical actions. Intentions, motives, reasons, and knowledge is shown through expression and is a contingent selection of choices. Moreover, understanding is also a selection process used by the system to differentiate communication and information (Baraldi and Corsi 2017). Social systems produce communication and expectations that refer to each system’s meaningful codes. Meaning is a product of social communication and consequently overlaps the difference between the system and its environment and without the upholding of meaning the system would conclusively lose itself in the environment and no longer exist as a system (Luhmann 1995). Meaning is upheld by binary codes that mark the distinction between what is included in the system and what is excluded. The binary codes offer direction for various operations and actions within each system (Luhmann 1995). Meanings are not fixed but are subject to change over time. As social contexts change, so too do the meanings associate with particular words, concepts, or ideas.

When investigating meaning, constructed through communication, it is possible to understand the ways in which social systems function and interact with other systems regarding risk of marginalisation. Marginalisation rates on VET differ between regions in Norway (Simson 2014). These differences indicate the complexity which is connected to how upper-secondary education is organised by the county, as well as the regional levels of education, unemployment, business structures, and centralisation (Hovdhaugen and Skålholt 2019. Differences in how VET suits the local labour market are relevant (Bæck 2019; Hagen, Nadim, and Nyen 2008; Jørgensen 2018) and the environment of the VET system will vary from place to place. Hence, VET-system is depending on space-related culture and norms. From our point of view, space is considered as a relational category, meaning space itself arises when one object is related to another (Massey 2005).

Method

To explore how the risk of marginalisation is addressed in VET, we chose to conduct a case study. For our purpose, we understand in line with Flyvbjerg (2001) that our case study not to any higher degree is a matter of methodology. Following this line of thought, what is decisive on our part for whether it is a case study or not is rather a question of what unit and boundaries that are to be studied. The unit’s and boundary of our case is a local VET system consisting of a school, a training agency, and companies/institutions offering apprenticeships. In general, a training agency in Norway is situated in close connection to the market and specific disciplines (Jørgensen 2018). In our study, the training agency is cross-disciplinary, and it was initiated by the former head of the school and became strategically established at the local school. The sub-systems are tied together by ‘(…) a string of concrete and interrelated events that occur “at such a time, in such a place” which constitute the case when seen as a whole’ (Flyvbjerg 2001, 301). As noted, ‘(…) case studies focus on relation to environment, that is, context’ (Flyvbjerg 2001), 301). Thus, our case study generates context-dependent knowledge.

The unit chosen may be studied in several ways. In our case study, we use qualitative in-depth interviews with strategically chosen representatives. Important for our VET study within the boundaries chosen, is the selection of informants, which represent richness and variance in systems, meaning, and communication (Luhmann 1995).

Our study is an empirical case of one specific Norwegian VET system, and as mentioned it includes three different organisations (the school, the training agency, and the companies) on which we raise the question of how it deals with the risk of marginalisation. We explore how the different organisations 1) act like subsystems producing certain communication and meaning, answering to specific rationalities 2) how the subsystems respond and act to reduce the risk of marginalisation and 3) how the subsystem interacts to receive legitimacy in their respective environment and in the institutional environment of the VET-system.

During the analytical design, we have used the concepts of system, environment, communication, meaning, autopoiesis, and inclusion/exclusion, legitimacy, relations and translation, and marginalisation. Theorising and thick narratives (Flyvbjerg 2006) were employed to uncover how the subsystems organise themselves to address marginalisation.

The data were gathered from a county in central Norway. The VET system in our research is situated in a village with around 4,000 inhabitants. The local labour market of the village consists of one large construction company and several electrical companies, two large industry companies, and a sawmill. Additionally, the public sector and the municipality are important employers in healthcare, education, childcare, and other public and welfare sectors. As mentioned, the county’s cross-disciplinary training agency is situated at the upper-secondary school.

The local upper-secondary school has about 115 students each year. Despite its small size, the school offers both first- and second-grade programmes on childcare, healthcare, construction, and electronics. More than 50% of the students enter VET. In 2022, 65 students took the vocational pathway, and 51 took the academic pathway. Two programmes are available in the academic pathway. The school also offers sports education. Twenty-three teachers work at the school, as well as 11 other professionals. The administration consists of the head of the school and two other leaders who work in a team. One leader is responsible for VET.

The unit boundary of our case is as mentioned a local VET and its subsystems. As pointed out the study was carried out through qualitative in-depth interviews with strategically chosen representatives representing organisational actors of the three subsystems. The qualitative data consist of 14 in-depth interviews that were conducted at the upper secondary school (three leaders, one counsellor, six teachers, one head of the training agency, and three leaders of apprentices at companies). The informants were selected with support from the headmaster and based on each person’s significant role in the VET system. We also interviewed the former head of the school since he had played a leading role in establishing the current VET system. The current head of the school, the head of the VET system, the school counsellor were interviewed, as well as one teacher from the VET electricity programme and one from the childcare programme. Additionally, we conducted a group interview with four teachers from the healthcare programme. In addition, we interviewed the leader of the cross-disciplinary training agency and three supervisors for apprentices from healthcare, childcare, and construction companies.

The design of each interview guide was different since each interview was directed towards a specific field (for example, health care, workplace supervisor, training agency, school counsellor, or teacher at upper secondary school). The fields were paired with the interview guides, which consisted of six themes: experience regarding marginalisation, VET organisations that consider contradictions in expectations, policies and goals, challenges and opportunities that are encountered when addressing diversity in student groups, and assessments of sustainability in the system.

The interviews lasted between 90 and 150 minutes each and were conducted at the school or the workplaces of the apprentice supervisors by one or two researchers. We recorded the interviews, transcribed all the interview data, and anonymised the informants during the transcription.

The study was approved by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data. The informants approved the recording of the interviews and their participation in the study. All the participants received written information regarding anonymity and confidentiality as well as how they could withdraw from the study.

The analysis was conducted in three steps. First, the data were divided into three categories: ‘school,’ ‘cross-disciplinary training agency,’ and ‘work.’ The categories were based on all the informant’s knowledge of each specific subsystem’s work on the topic of marginalisation. From the initial analysis, we could identify communications of different types of meanings. As expected, the school, for instance, had a whole system to counteract the risk of marginalisation in VET, while the companies had difficulties incorporating such norms in their daily activities.

The second step involved creating thematic coding for each category (subsystems), the school, the cross-disciplinary training office, and the companies. Based on similarities between the three subsystems, the thematic coding resulted in the following general categories: ‘marginalisation,’ ‘individual support,’ ‘students at the centre,’ ‘pragmatic solutions,’ ‘the importance of communication,’ and ‘contradictions in expectations and goals.’

For the third step, we identified similar categories of codes across the interview, and the analysis was theoretically informed. We used the concept environment, communication, meaning, autopoiesis, and inclusion/exclusion related to social systems (Luhmann 1995) and explored how the different subsystems were communicating on the risk of marginalisation, what meaning this communication created, and how it responded to the complexity of the environment. Moreover, we explored how each sub-system acted on risks of marginalisation in its institutional environment to appear rational and receive legitimacy. From the third step, we outlined the following themes, which are presented in the results; Addressing risk of marginalisation in VET, different meanings, and constructing bridges between sub-systems in VET.

Addressing risk of marginalisation in VET

The school in our study defines marginalisation as an issue that affects students with learning difficulties, students in difficult situations, and students with disabilities. In one aspect, the student group is homogenous since most come from the local area, but the academic levels differ greatly among the students, and the teachers are aware that they need to address differences in background to address risk of marginalisation.

We have to do a lot of adaptive education in the classroom to reach every student. We discuss a lot with each other to find the right way to adapt, but it isn’t easy all the time. (Healthcare Teacher)

The aims expressed by the school is to become a school in which VET is valued and were all students, no matter of social background, feel welcomed. The emphasis on pedagogic relations in VET has been made evident to everyone in the organisation over time. It is important for the school that all teachers in their daily tasks work in relational ways with the students, to hinder the students’ risk of being excluded. The purpose of relational pedagogy is to focus on the students and address equal worth indifferent of background. The former head of the school states:

It is so important to have a good relationship with the students because then you are able to do anything together with them … We started to have small groups of students in the subjects of Norwegian, Math, and English, to be able to give adaptive education. Because, with 30 students from VET in the same class, that is not easy … I looked specifically for teachers who were able to form good relationships with the students. I think of the relationship as being more important than the subject. (Former Head of the School)

The school’s former vision states that the school should be ‘broad and good.’ Embedded in that vision is the idea that whether a student chooses the academic or vocational programme or whether they are part of the special educational needs group for students with disabilities, they should receive equal attention and education so they can perform at their best.

When the school established the cross-disciplinary training agency in 2014, it became central to transfer the values of inclusion to the newly hired leader of the cross-disciplinary training agency. The new cross-disciplinary leader came from the educational system, and due to the pedagogical background, the leader easily understood different ways to support students, teachers, and companies. Moreover, the cross-disciplinary training agency was strategically established at the local school.

The collaboration with the school, I will say, is the success factor. Because of that, we are able to get almost everyone through VET. … With students who are not really capable of applying for an apprenticeship or competing for an apprenticeship, I work closely together with the counselor at the school to find out what might be a solution for the student. Then, we speak with the company and try to track a specific student to a specific company. Because I know all the companies well, I know who is able to take care of the student during the apprenticeship. And if there are students with special needs, I work together with the NAV [New Labor and Welfare Administration]. (Leader of the Cross-Disciplinary Training agency)

Students also might be at risk of experiencing marginalisation during their apprenticeships and in the labour market. Therefore, some students might need extra support. The school policy states that individual apprentices have the right to one meeting every 6 months, but some students need more support; Some of them want to meet me every third month or even more often (Leader of the Cross-Disciplinary Training Center).

Involving students who are at risk of experiencing marginalisation is a dilemma for companies that receive apprentices. Companies understand some students have more difficulties than others and they understand that they need to include diverse people in the labour market. Still, companies are under economic and legal pressure and need to display competence. Sometimes, however, a company agrees with the training agency and, with support from the pedagogical and psychological service, takes on an apprentice with special needs. During the apprenticeship period, the company receives pedagogical support from the training agency; It is so important that we are able to discuss special needs with the training agency (Childcare Supervisor).

Different meanings

Addressing diversity among students is deeply institutionalised in the school’s organisational policy and practices – although this is not always the rationale of the companies. The school has built a system to minimise the risk of marginalisation by, for example, frequently communicating across subjects about each student’s challenges. This can explain the school having the lowest drop-out ratio in the region.

We quite often have meetings with all the teachers where we talk about the students’ situations. Additionally, we talk positively about them. If they don’t show up at school, the contact teacher or the counsellor follows them up … All the different people at the school help in noticing students who struggle – the cleaner, the janitor, everyone tries to create a good environment for the students. (Childcare Teacher)

While the school have institutionalised norms supporting equity and inclusion, the labour market is much more influenced by economic values such as marketisation and competition. Many companies in the region are small in terms of market competition; therefore, they need apprentices with whom they see the potential of becoming skilled co-workers. The same counts for the public sector. The sectors request students with high energy who are well trained, have no absence from school, and can take the initiative and manage their time.

I like apprentices who are a bit robust, meet up on time, take part in the social [gatherings] during breaks, and so on … It is important that we help them to participate in regular work tasks, so they learn. It is kind of an investment in time and money, but, on the other hand, this is our way to recruit [our] workforce. (Construction Supervisor)

Although the sectors of companies cooperate with the school regarding the types of programmes that are offered in VET, the economic rationale controls the selection of students for training jobs. However, the individual skills that the sectors seek are considered before grades, and the well-integrated VET system works well for students who are entering training jobs. The sectors understand issues regarding students in need of extra support, but they still mention difficulties involving students who do not possess all the relevant skills since they might create risks for companies, workplaces, and customers.

The teachers and the leader of the cross-disciplinary training agency are also aware of the demands in the sectors. Therefore, they prioritise the subject of vocational specialisation to give students opportunities to experience practice in ‘real life,’ which is important.

We are sending out students in first grade to companies for practice. … The students must promote themselves for an apprenticeship, and the companies have high requirements. We talk a lot about what they need to do. (…) I must plan for that early, be in close contact, and nag at the companies to receive our students. I drive around and jab a bit with my colleagues in the area, so I have a good network. (Teacher Electrical Engineering)

When you get into working life, there are some demands. It is very positive, then. And they (the apprentices) notice it themselves, the way they change as people when they come out into the working life, where there are actually some rules to deal with. And they must come at seven. Otherwise, they don’t have use for you. (Leader of the Cross-Disciplinary Training Center)

Overbridging sub-systems in VET

The most important factor in counteracting the risk of marginalisation seems to be the collaboration between the three subsystems in VET, with the training agency and its leader undoubtedly being the most important aspect since it works as a mediator and translator between systems. Through different system rationales, the leader of the cross-disciplinary training agency follows the students from ninth grade in secondary school all the way to earning their certificates as apprentices.

The leader of the training agency meets the students for the first time when they are in ninth grade through a pre-introduction program. After the first meeting, the students visit the school to try different programs. After that, the leader of the training agency participates both in providing information to the classes they will meet in the secondary school as well as in parental meetings before the students choose a program in tenth grade. I have taken the leader of the training agency with me in everything because we must cooperate within VET, and it is important that the leader of the training agency has competence regarding the pathways in VET and can continue the work we do there. (Counselor, Upper-Secondary School)

We have used the ability to adapt our education to the local labor market. Because of this good collaboration, we can adapt to students and adjust educational pathways when needed. By working flexibly and nontraditionally, we can catch students at risk of marginalization. (Head of the School)

The informants from all the different subsystems of VET mention the collaboration between the leader of the cross-disciplinary training agency and the counselling service as an institutionalised bridge-building strategy. The design promotes strong pathways for the students and counteracts marginalisation. Because the leader of the cross-disciplinary training agency can provide a pedagogical approach for the apprentices, the leader becomes responsible for addressing pedagogical issues, whereas the apprenticeship company addresses the vocational subject. Regarding the cross-disciplinary design of the training agency, one apprenticeship leader in the municipality states the importance of the division of tasks: It is not possible for one person to be specific in all these branches. And, even in the specific subject of healthcare, there are a number of different specialised tasks to consider. (Leader of Apprenticeship in the Municipality).

The system is characterised by strong informal communication with students at risk of experiencing marginalisation. In practice, the teachers place students with difficulties (in their schooling) in a company that they know can deal with students with educational challenges and who can engage in teaching the students the basic skills and attitudes that they need to obtain an apprenticeship. The idea is that once a student has a job and is included in the labour market, they can look for other possibilities if they want.

Discussion

In this article, we explore how a VET system addresses students’ risk of marginalisation. In the context of vocational education and training (VET), being marginalised is seen as a risk to one’s ability to successfully complete the programme. As mentioned in the introduction, local VET systems need to cope with youth from diverse social backgrounds. Between the second and third year there is a severe risk of marginalisation (Falch and Nyhus 2009). The risk requires effective communication between the education system and the labour market. At the local level, the issue of marginalisation risk demands a high degree of system integration between schools and companies/institutions, as for example when a company receives pedagogical support from the training agency.

The three sub-systems, the school, the companies/public sector, and the training agency, differ regarding what meaning they are communicating and what rationales those meanings express and can therefore be seen as autopoietic (Jørgensen 2004; Qvortrup and Qvortrup 2018). Yet, differentiation into subsystems involves the formation of coherent systems within systems, where a differentiated unit must be recognised as a cohesive entity of the system (Baraldi and Corsi 2017). As an example, the VET system, has subsystems (the school, the training office, and the companies/institutions) that belong to diverse systems, such as the economic system and the educational system. The economic rationale is obviously significant for the private and public sectors and translates into communication regarding students at risk when companies demand skilled, professional, and responsible workers. Moreover, the risk of marginalisation of young people in the transition from school to apprenticeship is seen as something that may be over-bridged by the students learning and experiences during practice in the subject of Vocational Specialisation. This approach also connects to an economic rationale since the students during Vocational Specialization, invest in knowledge and roles that make them able to compete, i.e make themselves attractive to employers and by that less exposed to the risk of marginalisation.

In parallel, the school system maintains that educational pedagogical solutions in a wider perspective are important since individuals with the right support can overcome obstacles. That is also important for the labour market which will be able to employ educated staff as well as for society at large (Falch and Nyhus 2009; Halvorsrud 2017). Governed by law, the school system is obligated to respond to the demand for equity and inclusion in education, especially in reference to the educational institutions’ legitimisation (Brunsson 2006). In Norway, the completion reform is one example of a requirement for inclusiveness in VET (Ministry of Education and Research 2021). A bridging between subsystems indicates a societal contract that is formalised as a tripartite agreement involving government, authorities of education, and companies in supporting VET.

In between the two subsystems, the school and the companies/public sector, we find the mediating Cross-disciplinary training agency. Formally, a training office is intended to act as the link between schools and companies. These offices possess extensive knowledge about vocational training and have a deep understanding of the local job market and ensure that apprentices receive thorough and relevant training in accordance with the requirements of the specific trade. It is a mediating subsystem, yet it might be considered as more integrated in the economic system, than in the educational system. From a system theoretical perspective, communication includes selected information to uphold the systems meaning (Baraldi and Corsi 2017). Each system arranges its own inclusion and exclusion, without any regard to other functional systems, meaning that it is possible for a student to be included in school, but excluded from training and the labour market (Luhmann 2002). Hence, the meaning of the cross-disciplinary training agency is to provide companies with apprentices and vice versa, accordingly, to mediate. Therefore, the mediating system can only be legitimate by responding to an environment where the school, as well as the companies, are important actors (Brunsson 2006).The environment in our case is the local community and the labour market environment relating to both the educational- and the economic system. While maintaining close collaboration in VET between different actors and systems it is a flexible environment with employers which makes it possible to overcome different rationales. However, from our perspective, the key factor for how the investigated VET system addresses the risk of marginalisation among students is the overbridging cross-disciplinary training office, its location at the school, and its knowledge and the training office’s effort to communicate the importance of including each and every student. In our case, communications between the subsystems end up in a new system of meaningful communication on the risk of marginalisation, based on the sub-systems rationale as well as understanding the importance of over-bridging between sub-systems in the dual vet system.

As our results indicate the communication network between the three subsystems (the school, the companies/public sector, and the training agency) addresses students at risk of marginalisation. The subsystems also act and make decisions regarding apprentices based on their mutual communication (Brunsson 2006). Companies and public institutions upholding apprenticeships obviously have an economic rationale. Yet, their economy is dependent on vocational education (at the local school) and on the available workforce of the local community. Luhmann (2002) suggests that in complex institutional environments, systems can either reject or expand their communication to encompass broader intentions, motives, reasons, and knowledge. This broader approach goes beyond simple economic production while still maintaining the system’s benefits and legitimacy (Brunsson 2006). From our study, we conclude that an organisation that is not interested in taking advantage of the local workforce will in the long run have difficulties with winning legitimacy. Winning legitimacy could be considered a constraint or a genuine interest. From a cultural and economic community perspective, one could argue that the companies benefit from pursuing a thriving community, especially since this logistically will sustain their existence (staff turnover, service, and transportation). When paying attention to the construction and reconstruction of the local community the overbridging between systems in turn benefits VET as local companies are willing to respond when students are at risk of exclusion while not completing their VET certificate. When the work placement of students is perceived, as a responsibility for the whole community, it advances the understanding of how collective contributions support students learning (Lopez-Fogues 2016).

The overbridging between the different subsystems seems to affect VET systems since it one way or another addresses marginalisation. The school adapts to the environment, the sectors, and the labour market (Brunsson 2006; Luhmann 2018). Via a new subsystem whose meaning is to create inclusion in the local community, overbridging between systems occurs (Luhmann 2002). Instead of creating institutional hindrances, the educational system supports the companies in finding solutions and reorganising students’ pathways to fulfil their apprenticeships (Bæck 2019; Hagen, Nadim, and Nyen 2008; Jørgensen 2018).

Conclusion

Marginalisation in education and at work differs between regions in Norway (Simson 2014). The marginalisation rate in our specific case is low, and likely connected to how the VET subsystems collaborate, integrate, and address marginalisation. The school, and the companies/public sector are autopoietic systems that are connected to different environments and organisational fields (Brunsson 2006; Luhmann 1995). We find that communication and organisation can bridge the gap between different systems’ rationales by incorporating common goals that are openly expressed.

Maintaining a strong collaboration in VET across various actors and systems is crucial for creating a flexible environment that enables the overbridging between subsystems with different rationales. Our theoretical perspective highlights that in our case, the primary factor for effectively addressing the risk of marginalisation among students within the examined VET system lies in the existence of a comprehensive cross-disciplinary training office, strategically located within the school, which possesses extensive knowledge and actively emphasises the inclusion of every student. In our specific case, communication among the subsystems culminates in the development of a novel system that nurtures meaningful communication about the risk of marginalisation. This system is rooted in the rationale of each subsystem and recognises the significance of encouraging connections between subsystems within the dual VET system.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).