Phillipp Gonon and Lorenzo Bonoli

It is an achievement that already in the year 1930 a specific nation-wide regulation for VET has been established in Switzerland. A framework-regulation was the way to focus on minimal standards and guidelines and let space for specific and local solutions. Also the succeeding federal laws since 1930, offered the 26 cantons some room for maneuver in implementing federal provisions at the regional level. This is reflected in sometimes significant differences between the cantons, particularly regarding participation in dual VET. The rates range in fact from 80% of young people in the 15-18 age group in the canton of Inner Appenzell to 21% in the canton of Geneva. How can such differences be understood? When did these differences emerge? And what factors can explain their appearance?

Our contribution will answer these questions by considering a decisive period in the evolution of the Swiss VET, i.e. the period from 1950 to 1970. Although cantonal differences have always existed, it is from this period that we can observe an increase in differences and, above all, a clear separation between the German-speaking cantons, where the rate of apprenticeships remains relatively high, and the Latin cantons, where apprenticeship rates tend to stagnate if not decline.

The aim of our analysis is to identify a series of factors (economic, pedagogical, political and socio-cultural) which influenced cantonal policies in three specific cases (Cantons of Geneva, Zürich and Ticino) during the period under study and which will enable us to explain the origin of the differences we observe today.

Our analysis thus presents several elements of general interest, which go beyond a simple reconstruction of the Swiss VET. Firstly, it allows us to question the unity of the so-called "Swiss model" and to show how behind it lie relatively different policies and conceptions of VET. . Secondly, our research permits us to refine the tools for the comparative analysis of VET systems. The comparative analysis of different cantonal policies within the margins of a common federal law allows us to go in depth into the search for the multiple factors which may explain the adoption of different measures in different cantons. Finally, our approach proposes a diachronic comparative analysis, the aim of which is to explain the differences between VET systems on the basis of the processes that lead to the affirmation of these differences, thereby avoiding the misleading image of static VET systems.