Comparison of Dual VET Models in Spain: Analysing Educational Quality from the Perspective of Educational Centres

Abstract

In Spain, dual vocational training has recently become a fundamental pillar to train the working population. This article focuses on two objectives: to evaluate the quality of two models of dual VET in Spain and to identify their differences in terms of the following dimensions: Teaching Team, Process, Evaluation and Synergies. To achieve these objectives, a quantitative methodology and a cross-sectional design were used to collect data using an ad hoc questionnaire (37 items) developed based on a literature review and the 14 European quality criteria. The sample consisted of 263 educational institutions. Regarding the results for the first objective, Model B implemented EQAVET with higher quality. With regards to the second, researchers observed that all dimensions received a high or very high compliance of 70%. However, discrepancies were primarily found in the training of tutors in training centres, quality certification of dual VET and links, and support and cooperation between training centres and companies. This study provides empirical evidence regarding the factors that lead to higher quality dual VET in schools, based on the manner in which the criteria of the European Framework for Quality and Effective Vocational Education and Training (EQAVET) are implemented.

1. Introduction

Since the 2000s, various international organisations have promoted a work-based training model and numerous efforts have been made to identify quality factors in dual Vocational Education and Training. For example, the OECD publication [1], Better Skills, Better Jobs, Better Lives, and the European Commission’s report, Work-based Learning in Europe [2]. These publications recommend that different countries implement or strengthen policies based on this model due to the benefits it offers in facilitating the transition from educational centre to work, thus improving labour market skills and reducing high rates of youth unemployment. In addition, these bodies have also made considerable efforts to develop quality assurance measures, both from an internal (self-assessment) and external perspective (hetero-assessment) so as to verify the existence and use of appropriate procedures in this regard.

In Europe in particular, dual VET stands out for its ability to bring the education and production sectors closer together, involving companies as an integral part of the training process. This model seeks to link production processes with the skills of vocational training, creating unique and specific projects for each environment. It also promotes a high level of cooperation between the actors involved in implementing dual VET [3]. However, notable differences are found in the conception of dual VET systems and their regulation in the different Member States of the European Union. Since 2018, we can speak of three main systems, which each of the Member States integrates differently [4,5]:

• Firm-based Scheme. This is characterised by promoting competence-based learning, aimed at specific occupations recognised by public administrations. The apprenticeship system is independent of the education system and structured in programmes that are applied uniformly in all companies. Examples of countries that implement this system are Germany, Austria, Denmark and Norway.
• Educational centre-based Scheme. This is a learning system that is part of the education system. In-company training is not always regulated and can vary depending on the organisations involved. Examples of countries that implement this system are the Netherlands, France, Belgium (Flemish), Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece.
• Hybrid Scheme. In this case, the apprenticeship is aimed at enabling the youth population to obtain a qualification that will facilitate their access to the labour market. It is associated with social inclusion policies and is a system with its own learning programmes independent of the education system, although these are not very structured. The system is regulated so that it is taught in a homogeneous way in all companies involved in the scheme. Belgium (French-speaking) and Cyprus are two countries where this system is implemented.

This heterogeneity at the European level has led to the adoption of the European Framework for Quality and Effective Apprenticeship Training [6], which defines dual VET under four guiding principles:

• It combines learning in education or training institutions with substantial learning in enterprises and other workplaces.
• It leads to nationally recognised qualifications.
• It is based on an agreement setting out the rights and obligations of the learner, the employer and, where appropriate, the educational institution.
• It allows students to receive remuneration or compensation for the activity carried out at work.

The dual VET has emerged as an innovative alternative within the Spanish context, gaining importance in recent years following the publication of the basis for the development of the Training and Apprenticeship Contract in 2012 [7]. According to Pozo-Llorente and Poza-Vilches, “[the] VET educational scheme has been a political priority for national and regional governments, who see it as a strategy for socioeconomic growth, employability, and youth entrepreneurship framed under an educational sustainability model” [8] (p. 1). However, its implementation has posed major challenges to the education system and the initial implementation of certain deficient processes [9], due to the lack of a needs diagnosis and possibilities for their development [10]. Some of these challenges have been related to students’ and families’ perceptions of the real professional opportunities offered by this type of training [3], the stereotype of vocational training as the alternative to university education [11], companies offering places to guarantee equal access to all types of students [12], the balance between theoretical and practical knowledge taught in the company [9], and the training of trainers [13]. The approval of the recent Organic Law 3/2022, of 31 March, on the Organisation and Integration of Vocational Training, has made it possible to further advance the development of dual VET, as it proposes a single vocational training system that will be dual in nature and distributed via different models throughout the country, depending on compliance with the quality criteria included in the EQAVET [6].

In reference to the European classification mentioned above, Spain implements the Educational centre-based Scheme, with two main models included in the dual VET systems of the different Autonomous Communities that make up the Spanish State. In our analysis of these two models, we have referred to the 14 European quality criteria approved by the Council of Europe in 2018.

Table 1. Description of EQAVET criteria in the case of selected Spanish dual VET models.

Quality Criteria	Model A	Model B
Criterion 1. Written agreement.	Standardised collaboration agreement that structures the activities, open days, duration and training to be held. All training positions must be funded by companies.	Framework collaboration agreement and individual training agreements for each internship. The relationship between the student and the company can be through a scholarship or an alternating training contract.
Criterion 2. Learning outcomes.	Learning assessment is the responsibility of the teaching staff in each vocational training programme, taking into account assessment of the students’ performance by those responsible at the company.	Both the educational centre and the company are involved in the implementation and evaluation of dual VET.
Criterion 3. Pedagogical support.	The training of tutors and coordinators of educational centres, as well as company tutors, is essential for their adequate involvement in the dual model.	Teams of experts are available to educational centres and companies participating in dual VET projects to advise them and resolve employment issues.
Criterion 4. Workplace component.	33% of the total hours of the vocational training are in-company training. Students must divide their time between the centre and the company in the first and second years, completing between 530 and 800 h in the Intermediate and Advanced Levels and between 300 and 500 h in Basic Vocational Training. Training can be organised by days, weeks or months.	General Dual Vocational Training requires that the percentage of the internship period ranges from 25% to 35% of the total training and the number of hours of the internships ranges from 530 to 800 h. In Intensive Dual Vocational Training, these figures are more than 35% and over 800 h. Alternating attendance between the educational centre and the company takes place mainly in the second year.
Criterion 5. Remuneration or compensation.	The financial compensation of students is a mandatory requirement for all new dual VET projects and for 50% of renewed projects.	The minimum compensation received by students must reflect a progressive percentage of the minimum interprofessional wage or collective bargaining agreement, in proportion to the time spent at the company.
Criterion 6. Social protection.	The company must register students with the Social Security office as fulfilling an external curricular internship. Supplementary coverage is available through an accident and liability insurance policy.	Participation in dual VET requires registration with the Social Security office.
Criterion 7. Working conditions, health and safety.	Students must receive information and training in occupational risk prevention.	Students must receive information and training in occupational risk prevention.
Criterion 8. Regulatory framework.	Dual VET is regulated in accordance with State regulations (Royal Decree 1529/2012, of 8 November, which outlines the contract for training and apprenticeship and establishes the bases of dual VET) and corresponding regional regulations.	General and intensive Dual VET is regulated in accordance with State regulations (Royal Decree 1529/2012, of 8 November, which outlines the contract for training and apprenticeship and establishes the bases of dual VET) and corresponding regional regulations, which were introduced on an experimental basis several years earlier.
Criterion 9. Involvement of social partners.	Through a collegiate body, social agents (the Educational Inspectorate, the most representative trade unions, business organisations, the Provincial Delegation and the Ministry of Education) participate in evaluating dual VET projects submitted to the annual call.	The dual VET model must favour the involvement of training centres, trainers, companies and the Legal Representation of Workers throughout the student’s training process. This involvement is based on mutual cooperation, communication, coordination and trust.
Criterion 10. Support for businesses.	There are few economic incentives for companies participating in dual VET projects to complement those offered at the State level.	There are financial incentives for companies participating in dual VET projects. The aim is to develop a quality seal for companies implementing dual VET and to provide for certification of this quality.
Criterion 11. Mobility.	Students can complete training in a single company or by rotating through different companies.	Student mobility is available on a voluntary basis, especially within the framework of European mobility programmes.
Criterion 12. Career guidance and awareness-raising.	Provincial Teams for Educational and Vocational Guidance are made up of professionals with different profiles who provide personalised attention tailored to the needs of students.	Guidance is a strategic element of dual VET, promoting specific strategies for the dissemination of dual VET, from the use of social networks to information at fairs and conferences.
Criterion 13. Transparency.	There is a formal procedure for accrediting companies, which assesses their suitability as training companies. The public can access online information regarding the training programmes available in dual VET. Students are selected according to regional regulations and in collaboration with the company.	A system evaluation report is drawn up periodically, which includes, as a minimum, data on the dual vocational training programmes available, participating companies, the student selection system and their academic and training performance. All these data must be published transparently on institutional portals or websites.
Criterion 14. Quality assurance and trainee follow-up.	The Education Department carries out internal monitoring and evaluation of dual VET projects, promoting job placement, quality in the skills acquired and greater opportunities derived from the needs of companies and productive sectors.	The Education Department carries out internal monitoring and evaluation of dual VET projects, with the aim of promoting quality job placement, establishing public monitoring indicators and carrying out market research.

Source: Authors’ own work based on the Council of Europe, ESC and the Bertelsmann Foundation [5,6,14].

details each of the criteria in relation to the two Spanish-identified models.

From the data presented in Table 1, we can observe two models aimed at implementing dual VET in Spain. The schools under each model take on the administrative responsibilities of the model. The legal regulations and the development of dual VET must be similar to the schools of each Autonomous Community, that is, which belong to said model. Although fairly similar, they exhibit the following main differences:

• Model A has 336 dual VET schools in the academic year 2022–2023 [15]; all internships must be financed by companies; the general mode of dual VET is implemented; the educational centre is ultimately responsible for assessing students; students alternate attendance between the educational centre and the company in the first and second years; there is the possibility of mobility between companies; and economic support is starting to be made available in Spanish Autonomous Communities under the umbrella of this model. This model is seen as a valuable tool to improve the chances of young people entering the labour market [16].
• Model B has 320 dual VET schools in the academic year 2022–2023 [15]: the relationship between the student and the company can be based on a scholarship or a work-related training contract; both the general and intensive modes of work-related training are being implemented; State regulations have some experimental precedents at regional level; the educational centre and the company participate in assessing work-related training; there is greater alternation between attending the educational centre and the company in the second year; there is mobility between companies and between countries; economic support for companies already exists; there is great interest in the training of company tutors; and quality certification is promoted for collaborating companies. This model aims to meet the demands of people and businesses, adapting to the needs of sectors and territories.

Within this context, it is essential that the aforementioned dual VET models are developed with quality in mind. To this end, the present article outlines the results of the Ser FP research project conducted in Spain (PID2020-112842RB-100), one of the objectives of which was to identify quality levels in dual VET in two Spanish regions where the models are being implemented.

There follows a detailed description of the research carried out.

2. Aims

The research had the following two objectives:

• To evaluate the quality of dual VET being offered in educational centres implementing two dual VET models in Spain.
• To identify the differences between the two selected models in terms of four dimensions: Teaching Team; Processes; Evaluation and Synergies.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Procedure and Participants

A quantitative methodology and cross-sectional design were used to collect data on the quality of dual VET in the educational centres studied. Two Spanish Autonomous Communities were selected to represent Models A and B described in Table 1, since they offered the opportunity to carry out a relevant data collection based on years of experience in dual VET projects and the extent of this experience in terms of the educational centres involved (

Table 2. Sociodemographic data for the sample.

		Model A % (n)	Model B % (n)
Type of educational centre	State-run	78% (78)	74.8% (122)
	Semi-private	16% (16)	18.4% (30)
	Private	6% (6)	6.7% (11)
Type of dual VET	Intermediate-level professional training	41% (41)	33.1% (54)
	Advanced-level professional training	48% (48)	42.3% (69)
	Both	11% (11)	24.5% (40)
Initial year of dual VET	2008/09–2013/14	7 (7)	17.8 (29)
	2014/15–2017/18	47 (47)	52.8 (86)
	2018/19–2021/22	46 (46)	29.4 (48)

n = 100 model A, n = 163 model B. Source: authors’ own data.

).

The data were collected during the months of January and February 2023. The research team requested the educational centres’ participation by emailing the person responsible for dual VET at the centre or, if there was no such position, the person responsible for vocational training. To answer the questionnaire used in the survey, centres were asked to choose a training programme from among those they offered, specify the professional family it belongs to and respond to each indicator according to the selected degree programme.

The mailing was sent to educational centres participating in dual VET projects during the 2022–2023 academic year, specifically to 332 educational centres for Model A and 204 for Model B. The sample ultimately comprised 263 educational centres, 38% (100) of which implemented Model A and 62% (163) Model B. The response rate was 30.1% for Model A and 79.9% for Model B (Table 2).

3.2. Instrument

An ad hoc questionnaire was designed to assess the quality of dual VET in the educational centres studied. This instrument was developed on the basis of an exhaustive review of the existing literature on quality in dual VET and the construction of relevant indicators [6,17,18]. The 14 European quality criteria were taken as a reference, together with those of the EU’s EQAVET quality assurance programme [19], which ensures quality in the planning of training processes and the teaching teams that carry them out, implementation of the measures to be carried out and the synergies that come with them, evaluation of the procedures and products and the review of the results.

Developing the instrument entailed a participatory process involving experts in dual VET, representatives of companies, educational institutions, public VET administrations and the Bertelsmann Foundation. A total of 15 experts played a crucial role in the validation process, conducting multiple revisions of the instrument and providing important contributions to its refinement.

The instrument is composed of 37 items with dichotomous response options, indicating whether or not each of them is met. These indicators are classified into five dimensions, which are specified in

Table 3. Description of instrument dimensions.

Dimension (Number of Indicators)	Definition	Content	Example of Indicator
Teaching team (11)	Refers to the teaching team for the particular training programme, their specific training and experience of the programme in the professional sector.	Teachers in charge of coordinating the dual VET. Knowledge, training and experience of dual VET. Knowledge, training and experience in the professional family.	The individual or individuals who coordinate dual VET have the necessary knowledge of dual VET (modalities, regulations, training activities, tutoring and monitoring of students).
Process (9)	Refers to the information process, assignment of students to companies and entities, contact between educational centre and company/entity, and model of alternation between centre and company attendance.	Information provided by the educational centre. Company–student selection processes. Follow-up meetings. Nature of alternation between centre and company attendance. Planning and scheduling.	During their internship in the company, the educational centre tutors have contact with the students at least monthly.
Evaluation (7)	Relating to the existence of internal evaluations aimed at improving the performance of agents, resources and results.	Evaluation of tutors. Evaluation of quality systems. Evaluation of results. Evaluation of structures and resources.	The centre collects information on the job placements of its graduates in a systematic manner.
Synergies (10)	Refers to the relationships the centre maintains with other centres and with companies or entities that collaborate on dual VET projects.	Training and support from the centre to companies. Participation in events to promote and improve dual VET. Mobility of professionals between centres and companies.	The centre makes it easier for trainers and tutors from companies/organisations to get to know the educational centre.

Source: authors’ own data. Note: The examples of indicators have been translated into English for publishing purposes only.

.

3.3. Analysis

A compliance level index was calculated for each dimension. This index was then categorised according to the degree of compliance with the indicators as follows: very low (<25% of the indicators), low (25–50% of the indicators), high (50–75% of the indicators) or very high (>75% of the indicators).

Descriptive and inferential analyses were performed using contingency tables and the χ2 independence test to evaluate the relationships between dual VET models and compliance with each dimension. This test was complemented with Cramer’s V statistic, which quantifies the degree of association between variables while minimising the influence of sample size. In addition, normalised adjusted residuals were calculated to identify significant differences between groups.

All analyses were performed using the IBM SPSS statistical software package, version 22.

4. Results

As

Table 4. Compliance level with each dimension in relation to dual VET quality.

Dimension	Compliance Level % (n)
	Very Low	Low	High	Very High
Teaching team	0.8 (2)	13.3 (35)	48.3 (127)	37.6 (99)
Process	0.4 (1)	1.1 (3)	31.2 (82)	67.3 (177)
Evaluation	1.9 (5)	8.7 (23)	41.4 (109)	47.9 (126)
Synergies	4.6 (12)	20.9 (55)	55.5 (146)	19 (50)

Source: authors’ own data.

shows, more than half of the educational centres obtained high or very high levels of compliance with the quality criteria in all the dimensions analysed. The dimension related to Process displayed the highest compliance values, with 98.5% of educational centres having high or very high compliance. Next, the Evaluation dimension obtained 89.3% high or very high compliance and the Teaching Team dimension 85.9%. Finally, in the Synergies dimension, 74.5% of the educational centres had a high or very high compliance rate, making it the dimension with the lowest level of compliance.

Quality of Dual VET in Relation to Each Dual Training Model

The data obtained show that the type of VET model implemented has an impact on the quality of this training.

Firstly,

Table 5. Level of compliance with the Teaching team dimension according to the dual VET model.

Compliance Level % (n)	Model A	Model B
Very low	2 (2)	0 (0)
Low	17 (17)	11 (18)
High	49 (49)	47.9 (78)
Very high	32 (32)	41.1 (67)

Source: authors’ own data.

shows results for the level of compliance obtained by the Teaching Team dimension. Specifically, above 70% of the educational centres achieved high or very high compliance in both educational models, with no significant differences found. This indicates that the educational centres complied with the quality criteria related to the teaching team for each training programme, and their specific training and experience within the professional sector of the programme, regardless of the dual VET model.

Secondly, as

Table 6. Level of compliance with the Process dimension according to the dual VET model.

Compliance Level % (n)	Model A	Model B
Very low	1 (1)	0 (0)
Low	0 (0)	1.8 (3)
High	14 * (14)	41.7 * (68)
Very high	85 * (85)	56.4 * (92)

Source: authors’ own data. Note: * denotes significant values.

shows, above 85% of the educational centres obtained achieved high or very high levels of compliance for the Process dimension. In this case, the differences were significant with regard to a very high level of compliance (χ² = 26.253 · df = 3 · Cramer’s V = 0.316 · p < 0.000), with Model A (85%) obtaining higher levels than Model B (56.4%). This dimension includes issues related to the process of information provided to students, the assignment of students to companies, contact between educational centres and companies and the model of alternation between centre and company attendance.

Thirdly, as

Table 7. Level of compliance with the Evaluation dimension according to the dual VET model.

Compliance Level % (n)	Model A	Model B
Very low	3 (3)	1.2 (2)
Low	10 (10)	8 (13)
High	54 * (54)	33.7 * (55)
Very high	33 * (33)	57.1 * (92)

Source: authors’ own data. Note: * denotes significant values.

shows, above 80% of the educational centres achieved high or very high levels of compliance for the Evaluation dimension, with significant differences (χ² = 14.938 · df = 3 · Cramer’s V = 0.238 · p < 0.002). Specifically, differences were found in the levels of high and very high compliance: Model A (54%) obtained higher values than Model B (33.7%) in high compliance, and Model B (57.1%) had higher values than Model A (33%) in very high compliance. This confirms Model B’s higher level of compliance with criteria related to the internal assessment of agent suitability, resources and results.

Fourthly, as

Table 8. Level of compliance with the Synergies dimension according to the dual VET model.

Compliance Level % (n)	Model A	Model B
Very low	10 * (10)	1.2 * (2)
Low	31 * (31)	14.7 * (24)
High	51 (51)	58.3 (95)
Very high	8 * (8)	25.8 * (42)

Source: authors’ own data. Note: * denotes significant values.

shows, above 50% of the educational centres achieved high or very high levels of compliance for the Synergies dimension, with significant differences (χ² = 26.253 df = 3 · Cramer’s V = 0.316 · p < 0.000). Specifically, in the very low and low levels of compliance, it is Model A (10% and 31%) that obtained lower levels of compliance than Model B (1.2% and 14.7%). On the other hand, Model B (25.8%) obtained more very high levels of compliance than Model A (8%). This means that educational centres implementing Model B showed greater compliance in terms of the relationships between training centres and other centres, companies and bodies promoting dual VET.

5. Discussion

The results of our research show that, overall, the training centres surveyed maintain a high level of quality in the implementation of dual VET. Specifically, more than 80% of the training centres achieved a high or very high level of compliance in three of the four dimensions of the quality model. It is worth noting that the dimension related to Process achieved a compliance of more than 90% in the high or very high categories, while the dimension related to Synergies showed a compliance of around 70% for these categories.

In respect of the above, and taking the European quality criteria as a reference to consider the results obtained in each of the dimensions analysed, we find that, firstly, with regard to the teaching team, the indicators included in this dimension are generally very similarly met in both models. However, it is worth noting that in 74.2% of cases in Model B, all tutors in the dual programme have received specific training on dual VET in the last two years, while this figure is only 41% for educational centres implementing Model A, “in this sense, it requires training programs to address the competences required by the different professional sectors” [8] (p. 29). These results may be linked to the requirement in Model B that teams of experts be made available to educational centres and companies participating in dual VET projects to provide advice and resolve any issues on the part of the workforce. Model B of dual VET also emphasises the value of training and ongoing training for tutors, who must have the skills to ensure that training and learning processes are carried out in the company. The company tutor has a fundamental role in students’ achievement of learning objectives, adequate pedagogical training, and training in the sector in which he/she works [20]. Additionally, coordination between centres and companies is an essential factor in dual training [21]. This requires sufficient resources and must meet requirements that guarantee the quality and suitability of the training in relation to the needs of the sector, as well as continuous improvement. Several reports [19,22] have mentioned initial and ongoing training, pedagogical skills and the professional experience of individuals in the company who train apprentices as key elements of quality; this stands out as an area for improvement in the case of Model A.

Secondly, the results of the indicators included in the Processes dimension show that the biggest discrepancies occur in the number of meetings per year between the person coordinating the dual VET in the educational centre and/or the tutors of the educational centre and the company, as well as in the distribution of alternation of attendance between the educational centre and the company over one or more academic years. In the former case, the results may be due to the fact that in Model A funded projects have been launched that reward the work of tutors, promoting their greater involvement in the monitoring of student training, as stated in the Regional Report on the Quality of Dual Vocational Training in Spain [14]. In most Spanish Autonomous Communities under the umbrella of Model A, follow-up meetings are held between the educational centre tutor and the company tutor at least once a month, and tutorials are also held with the students at the educational centre during the training period in the company. Contact between the company and the educational centre is one of the facilitators valued by the teachers, a key factor in dual VET, as they have the most influence on its implementation and development, which suggests a strong quality indicator for Model A [23], in accordance with the research carried out by Martín-Suarez [16].

In addition, there is also a difference between the models with regard to the alternation of student attendance between the educational centre and the company: in Model A, alternation takes place in both years, whereas in Model B training mainly takes place in the centre in the first year and in the company in the second. It is therefore a difference based on the organisation of dual VET in Spain.

Thirdly, there are differences between the two models with regard to evaluation, mainly in relation to the certification of dual VET and the planned collection of data on the labour market integration of graduates. Regarding the former issue, in Model B, a quality seal is being developed to certify the quality of training in companies that provide dual VET, at three levels: commitment to quality; quality assurance; and excellence, taking into account that all state-run educational centres are already accredited according to these three levels of quality. Thus, it will soon be possible to certify the quality of the entire dual VET programme, both at the training centre and in the company [18]. With regard to the second point, in Model B, the Education Department carries out internal monitoring and evaluation of dual VET projects with the aims of promoting quality job placements, establishing public monitoring indicators and carrying out market studies. These results are in line with the EQAVET quality assurance programme promoted by the European Union [19], which emphasises the need to publicise the results of assessment, responding to national/regional standards and processes for quality improvement and assurance.

Fourthly, the Synergies dimension reveals that Model B is characterised by the organisation of regular training courses for company tutors. These courses include pedagogical aspects related to developing the training plan, receiving students and evaluating learning outcomes. Generally speaking, the Education Department is responsible for this, and can count on the support or collaboration of chambers of commerce and business associations. Furthermore, Model B also highlights the great diversity in bidirectional collaborative practices between educational centres and companies. The company collaborates with or supports the educational centre by means of dual VET teachers visiting the company, training sessions by company experts in the training centres, visits by teachers and students to the company, training sessions in the company by the centre’s teachers or donations of material by the companies to the training centres. And, for their part, the training centres support the companies by training their employees or helping them to accredit skills and obtain qualifications, by offering them help in organising student placements in companies or by making premises available to companies to carry out their activities [14]. In short, Model B deploys a series of actions that favour a collaboration between companies and educational centres that is based on trust and reciprocity, offers an integrated improvement of complementary resources and, ultimately, has an impact on the quality of dual VET projects [24].

These results allow us to conclude that the way Model B implements the EQAVET criteria in connection with the training centres (Table 1) offers a higher quality. Specifically, regarding the following criteria: learning outcomes (criterion 2), pedagogical support (criterion 3), involvement of social partners (criterion 9), support for business (criterion 10), mobility (criterion 11), career guidance and awareness-raising (criterion 12), transparency (criterion 13) and quality assurance and trainee follow-up (criterion, 14). Model A achieves higher quality in the process dimension, where this model places particular emphasis on communication between centre and company (criterion 4 related to workplace component), allowing it to excel in this area.

Limitations and Future Research

The questionnaire was filled in by dual VET coordinators, or in their absence VET coordinators, who had selected a specific training programme. This may introduce some bias, as the training programme with the best results or the oldest may have been selected. That being said, the questionnaire provides the educational centre with valuable information regarding its compliance with quality for the chosen training and the possibility of applying the evaluation tool to the rest of the vocational qualifications, since it is a self-evaluation tool available to the centres.

Furthermore, the research could be extended to other Spanish Autonomous Communities with similar models in order to carry out a comparison between the same model in different Autonomous Communities. This is all the more valid given that the regional specification of educational legislation leads to great territorial variability, both in terms of its pedagogical application in educational centres and in the conditions facing students and professionals.

Finally, it would be advisable to repeat the research over a period of around five years in order to analyse any possible changes resulting from the entry into force of the Organic Law on the Organisation and Integration of Vocational Training in 2022, and the amendments that accompany it.

6. Conclusions and Practical Implications

This study provides relevant data on the quality of educational centre-based dual VET, using the European Union guidelines as a framework to define quality in this regard. Overall, the dual VET was of good quality for the dimensions analysed, although differences were found between the models. This highlights the need to take into account the planning and resources invested in dual VET, as this will have an impact on the quality of VET. In addition, aspects related to cooperation networks between educational centres and cooperation and support between educational centres and companies could be further developed. Finally, we can conclude that the conditions under which dual VET is implemented in Model B offer greater quality in terms of issues related to the teaching team, evaluation and synergies, while Model A stands out for its strength in processes. In this respect, this research provides an overview of the quality of the two priority models of dual VET existing in Spain, as well as the challenges that both models will face in relation to national legislative developments and European guidelines that have promoted a VET training model constructed on work-based learning as a central pillar [25].

Our results can be used to guide decisions on the direction of dual VET within the framework of the new 2022 Organic Law on the Organisation and Integration of Vocational Training in Spain as the law requires all VETs to be dual. Dual VET offers advantages in terms of employment opportunities, skills development and practical experience [26], and a strong VET system is synonymous with high placement rates in quality jobs, low unemployment and an agile productive fabric that can adapt to the changes in a volatile and ever-changing economy [27]. The implementation of quality dual VET is therefore of paramount importance.

The use of the self-report tool to analyse the quality of dual vocational training [28] can be useful for educational centres. Currently, centres can use this tool to generate a quality report about themselves. The tool can be found in https://www.alianzafpdual.es/cuestionario-centros/ (accessed on 12 May 2024).