[Publication] Rights and benefit gaps for vocational education and training (VET) learners and professionals in the EU

This in-depth analysis examines whether vocational education and training (VET) learners, graduates and professionals are afforded equitable access to rights, services and public policy provisions relative to their counterparts in higher education (HE). The analysis draws on evidence at the EU and Member States levels to investigate disparities in labour market outcomes, public financial support, mobility, qualification recognition, and access to services and economic sectors, and whether they affect the attractiveness of the VET educational pathway.

Key findings

Looking at the labour market outcomes, VET graduates enjoy an initial employment advantage over graduates from general upper-secondary education, particularly when programmes include work-based learning components. However, this early advantage tends to weaken over time. VET graduates also score consistently lower on literacy, numeracy, and adaptive problem-solving in international assessments. At the same time, labour market outcomes are shaped not only by actual skills but also by how employers interpret qualifications. This means that part of the VET disadvantage reflects the lower status or signalling value of vocational pathways.

In the area of public financial support and mobility, the in-depth analysis shows that per-student expenditure and direct financial aid are systematically lower for upper-secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education than for tertiary education across most Member States. The scale of this gap, however, varies considerably: Nordic and Central-Western European systems tend toward greater parity, while Southern and Eastern European Member States show larger disparities. The gap is especially evident for apprentices, as their dual status as both students and employees often exclude them from student-oriented financial support. Administrative complexity in accessing available support is identified as an additional barrier that disproportionately affects lower-income applicants. The asymmetry is also evident in the lower number of VET students and teachers that participate in Erasmus+ mobility programmes compared to HE counterparts.

Regarding qualification pathways and recognition, the evidence shows that 70.2% of upper-secondary VET graduates hold qualifications that formally entitle them to access tertiary education. However, formal access does not always translate into real access. In practice, many VET graduates still face obstacles when trying to move into higher education or have their qualifications recognised. A key issue is the way transition routes are designed, and lack of information available to VET students. Recognition systems also differ between VET and higher education. Higher education benefits from established European frameworks, including the Bologna Process, the Lisbon Recognition Convention and the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System. VET does not have an equivalent system with the same practical effect. As a result, VET qualifications are still often assessed individually on a case-by-case basis, while automatic recognition remains more of a policy aspiration than a reality.

Regarding access to services and economic sectors, the evidence documents that national student card schemes, student bank accounts, and state-guaranteed loan schemes frequently default to HE enrolment as the qualifying criterion, leaving VET learners in an excluded or ambiguous position. A similar pattern appears in parts of the labour market. In some sectors, higher education qualifications are used as entry requirements even when the job tasks do not clearly require them. This reflects credentialism, where employers rely on higher-level diplomas as screening tools, partly because more workers now hold tertiary qualifications. In financial services, evidence from regulatory and market oversight authorities indicates that educational attainment enters insurance pricing models, but whether this results in systematically worse outcomes for VET graduates is not established on the available evidence.

Conclusions

Four cross-cutting patterns emerge. First, the documented barriers are distributed across the full learner pathway, from the study phase through the later career, and anticipated disadvantage shapes choices even before it is directly experienced. Second, significant cross-country heterogeneity demonstrates that the observed gaps reflect policy choices rather than inherent features of the VET model. Third, the consequences of identified gaps fall most heavily on the groups VET disproportionately serves, including learners from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, women in feminised VET sectors, and migrant learners. Fourth, many disparities originate in instruments and architectures designed with HE as the default, suggesting that extension and inclusion are more effective remedies than parallel VET-specific systems. The evidence base is itself uneven: financial support, mobility, and recognition gaps are well documented, while evidence on access to financial services and on credential displacement as a VET-specific barrier rests on a thinner empirical foundation.

Recommendations

The in-depth analysis puts forward eight recommendations, calibrated to the Herning Declaration commitments for 2026–2030 and the forthcoming European VET strategy under the Union of Skills:

1. Strengthen guidance and counselling at key transition points. Learners need clear information when choosing education pathways, moving from VET to higher education and returning to training later in their careers. Better guidance can make progression routes easier to understand and help address low expectations about VET;
2. Develop short cycle tertiary programmes as a clearer bridge between VET and higher education, and a recognised tertiary education pathway. This should have clear progression routes and credit-transfer arrangements, helping ensure that this level of education is regarded at the policy level as an equal tertiary education option alongside higher education;
3. Extend existing higher education support tools to VET learners where possible. Opening up existing support, mobility and recognition instruments to VET learners would help reduce the perception that VET has a lower status;
4. Improve financial support for VET learners. Support should be easier to access and more adequate. Apprentices from lower socioeconomic backgrounds may need additional means-tested support, especially where they fall outside student support schemes;
5. Strengthen the evidence base for future policy. Data collection should go beyond employment rates and cover longer-term career progression, access to services and barriers linked to credentialism. More evidence is also needed in currently under-researched areas, such as access to financial services;
6. Promote skills-first approaches in recruitment and access decisions. Employers and institutions should give more weight to what people can do, rather than relying mainly on the type or level of diploma they hold. This can help reduce the signalling disadvantage of VET credentials;
7. Reduce barriers to mobility. Disadvantaged VET learners often face higher costs and more uncertainty when taking part in mobility programmes. Member States should ensure that support can follow learners abroad when they take part in recognised opportunities; and
8. Invest in continuing VET and upskilling throughout working life. Stronger opportunities for lifelong learning can help prevent the value of VET qualifications from weakening over time and improve how learners and families view the long-term benefits of this pathway.