MODERN QUALITY ASSURANCE PRACTICES IN VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING IN DENMARK

Abstract

Relevance Against the backdrop of digital transformation, rapid labor market shifts, and escalating demands for professional qualifications, the issue of quality assurance in vocational education and training (VET) has acquired strategic significance for countries within the European VET area. Despite numerous studies addressing isolated facets of the Danish VET system, the institutional architecture of quality assurance, the interplay between external and internal mechanisms, the role of social partners, and the integration of European quality frameworks into national policy remain insufficiently explored.

Objective: This study analyzes the institutional model of quality assurance in Denmark’s vocational education and training, identifies key mechanisms of external and internal evaluation, and develops an analytical framework for the comparative analysis of national quality assurance systems.

Methods: The study employs institutional analysis, comparative analysis, and content analysis of regulatory documents, alongside reports from international organizations (CEDEFOP) and Danish institutions (the Danish Evaluation Institute and the Danish Accreditation Institution). The research scope encompassed identifying key institutions, analyzing their functions, comparing external and internal quality assurance mechanisms, and assessing the alignment of national approaches with the European Quality Assurance Reference Framework for Vocational Education and Training (EQAVET).

Results: It was established that the effectiveness of the Danish quality assurance model stems from a combination of institutional autonomy, risk-based supervision, active engagement of social partners, and the digitalization of monitoring processes. The Danish Evaluation Institute ensures systemic performance monitoring and thematic evaluations. Danish trade committees (Faglige udvalg) define professional standards, learning outcomes, and assessment criteria, thereby ensuring the alignment of programs with labor market needs. Learning-outcomes-oriented program accreditation guarantees transparency and accountability. Digital tools such as dashboards, automated data collection systems, and digital portfolios were found to enhance analytical accuracy and foster evidence-based management. Limitations were identified regarding the resource-intensive nature of the system and its dependence on social partners in less organized sectors.

Conclusions: The Danish VET quality assurance model demonstrates high institutional coherence, resilience, and adaptability amid technological and social shifts. Its theoretical value lies in formulating a holistic vision of a multi-level quality assurance system, while its practical utility resides in the potential adaptation of its elements to modernize national VET systems. It is recommended to foster the institutional autonomy of quality assurance bodies, enhance the participation of social partners, implement risk-based approaches, and scale up the use of digital monitoring tools.