Andreas Schleicher – yes, the man behind the PISA tests – recently wrote that vocational education “has a great future”.
That’s a remarkably upbeat message from someone we usually quote when talking about declining reading skills or falling maths scores. And to be fair, I share his optimism – though perhaps for slightly different reasons.
In his piece for OECD Education Today, Schleicher argues that the world of work is undergoing profound change. Not just because of technology, but also due to ageing populations, the green transition, and the shift from permanent jobs to short-term assignments and hybrid roles. That, he says, should power a new kind of vocational education: more flexible, more closely linked to industry, and focused on lifelong learning.
It sounds good. But, as often with Schleicher, beneath the elegant phrasing lies a policy logic worth unpacking.
The dream: vocational education as a bridge
Schleicher sees vocational education as the bridge between schooling and the economy.
Young people learn “the skills employers really need”, while adults can retrain for new roles. It fits perfectly with today’s skills-for-the-future narrative — the idea that we should train mainly for what tomorrow’s labour market demands.
And that’s exactly where I see the tension: education is more than labour-market preparation.
Good vocational education isn’t only about doing — it’s also about understanding why you do something. Without a solid foundation of knowledge — about materials, processes, economics, human behaviour — every skill becomes fleeting. Knowledge makes craftsmanship last.
If you train only for today, you train for replacement. Technology and industries evolve faster than ever.
The real value of vocational education lies not only in what you learn, but in how you learn to think, collaborate, and solve problems. Those are skills that have endured for centuries — and that don’t age, even when your trade does.
The reality: systems that move too slowly
Schleicher calls for stronger partnerships between schools and employers, flexible certification systems, and curricula that are continually updated. Entirely right — but that’s also what we’ve been struggling to achieve for the past twenty years.
Many schools want to move faster, but are trapped in red tape, fragmented funding, and endless approval processes.
And employers? They’re not always ideal partners either. A good training company needs time, mentoring capacity, and a real learning vision — not just an extra pair of hands.
It’s easy to say education should “respond faster” to the market. But we shouldn’t forget that the labour market itself rarely knows what it will need five years from now.
Schleicher is right that vocational education is crucial, yet his solutions often sound as if countries mainly need to become more efficient, more adaptive, and more aligned with economic needs.
The trouble is, good education is rarely more efficient — but it can, and should, be more human.
The core: respect, status, and humanity
Where Schleicher is entirely right is in his call for greater respect for vocational education.
In too many countries — including mine — it’s still seen as the “second choice”.
Parents prefer their children to take the “academic track”, even when it doesn’t suit them. We still talk about “higher education” as if that automatically means better education.
That’s not just unfair — it’s unsustainable.
These are the programmes that keep our societies running: engineering, healthcare, logistics, construction, maintenance, and energy.
That’s where the shortages are, that’s where the innovation is, that’s where the future lies.
But respect doesn’t come from slogans.
It takes real investment: strong teachers, modern facilities, room for mastery, and time to learn.
It may cost more, but it pays back in resilience.
The future isn’t only “vocational”
What I miss in Schleicher’s piece is the nuance that all education should, in a sense, be vocational — in that it helps people contribute meaningfully to society.
The divide between “academic” and “vocational” has long since become artificial.
The future needs thinkers who can do, and doers who can think.
A plumber who understands energy policy, and an economist who knows how a pump system actually works.
Perhaps that is the real future of vocational education — not as a separate track, but as a model for how learning and work can be more closely connected, without reducing everything to “labour-market relevance”.
So yes, Schleicher is right. And maybe not entirely.
Vocational education does have a brilliant future — but not automatically.
Not because the OECD says so, but because our societies need it to.
And because so many schools, teachers, and students are already building that future, often against the current.
The challenge isn’t to “modernise” vocational education, but to finally value it for what it already is: the most concrete, human, and knowledge-rich part of our education systems.
The future of vocational education is already here. We just need to recognise it.