Next Article in Journal
The World of Reciprocity: Forms of Social Capital among the Indigenous Totonacs of the Sierra Norte de Puebla
Previous Article in Journal
Trainee Teachers’ Perceptions of Socio-Environmental Problems for Curriculum Development
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Social Sciences
Volume 11
Issue 10
10.3390/socsci11100446
socsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Workshop Schools: From Employment Creation to Employability

by
Domingo Barroso-Hurtado
1,
Laura M. Guerrero-Puerta
2 and
Mónica Torres Sánchez
3,*
1
Departamento de Ciencias de la Educación, Universidad de Extremadura, 10004 Cáceres, Spain
2
Departamento de Educación y Psicología Social, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, 41013 Sevilla, Spain
3
Departamento de Teoría e Historia de la Educación y M.I.D.E., Universidad de Málaga, 29010 Málaga, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Soc. Sci. 2022, 11(10), 446; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11100446
Submission received: 2 August 2022 / Revised: 14 September 2022 / Accepted: 15 September 2022 / Published: 29 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Childhood and Youth Studies)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Workshop Schools are an alternance scheme which combines periods of education and training in educational institutions or training centres for young people at risk of social exclusion between the ages of 16 and 25. The present work of research aims to analyse the logic models underlying the design of these schemes from a historical perspective, specifically from their formation in 1985 up until the year 2020, paying special attention to both individual and structural aspects. Methodology: A qualitative study is carried out based on the analysis of 58 policy documents. Results: The results establish three different phases since the creation of the scheme (employment creation, lifelong learning and employability), analysing the changes produced in the design and relating them to international trends. A progressive self-responsibility forced upon young people rather than a concern on structural problems and barriers characterising the current labour market is also highlighted. Conclusions: Different international trends, such as job creation and the promotion of lifelong learning and employability, have had an influence in the logical models underlying the regulatory documents of the Workshop Schools and, therefore, the social problems and solutions the scheme seeks to provide.

1. Introduction

Workshop Schools have been dedicated to creating work-linked training schemes in Spain for 35 years, aimed at addressing young people’s transitions from unemployment to employment, placing special emphasis on training unemployed young people with a low level of education. (Barroso-Hurtado 2019). In the course of the training schemes, young people combined periods of education or training in an educational institution or training centre as well as in the workplace. Participants were contractually linked to the employer and received a remuneration to develop a community activity in a local environment. Students received a scholarship during the first training stage, remunerated in accordance with the current regulations of their activity (Ministerio de Trabajo y Economía Social 2020). As a public policy, Workshop Schools can be understood as providers of different levels of opportunities and support to young people during their transitions (Heinz et al. 2009), in this case, from unemployment to employment. Specifically, Workshop Schools constitute a public scheme promoted by autonomous institutions and other public entities from the General State Administration and the Autonomous Regions, local institutions and organisations with competences or dependent on employment promotions, foundations and other non-profit organisations financed by the State’s Public Employment Service. Recently, in the modality of competitive concurrence, also by the European Social Fund in charge of the payment of the students’ scholarships.
The regulatory design of Workshop Schools in Spain and Andalucia has not only undergone different reforms since the Great Crisis of 2007–2008, but it has also not remained immutable to other broader influences. With more than 35 years of history, it has endured several reforms which have impacted the approaches, opportunities, objectives, resources, and activities that articulate the propositions of social change and determine the design of the scheme, including those affecting the training, qualification, and transitions to employment of its participants. An example of this is the reform taken place as a result of the Regulation of 2 June 2016, a response to the suspension of the scheme stemming from problems with the funds’ management in 2012. This is a fundamental point in order to understand the temporalization covering the analysis of our work, which explores the proposals of change included in these new workshop school schemes immediately after its implementation. An analysis of social change proposals underlying social schemes and policies (e.g., Blasco 2009) may be one of the ways to address the ontology and construction of the problems these schemes and policies aim to address, as well as the way in which they try to respond to them (Rambla 2018; Tarabini and Curran 2013; Tarabini et al. 2018). Problems and solutions may draw different levels of attention to aspects more related to individuals or structural aspects (EGRIS 2002).
Given the relevance and actuality of dual training activities, coupled with high rates of youth unemployment in Spain and Andalucia and the opportunity for analysis ensuing a training and employment scheme with more than thirty years of history, it is of interest to increase research on which approaches on professional training schemes for employment at present address the transitions of young people to the labour market as well as the evolution over time. This research should cover the period from creation to implementation of the first Workshop School created right after the scheme was discontinued, a time in which they underwent a profound reform.
Therefore, the objectives we set out in our research are: (a) on the one hand, to analyse the evolution of the proposals for change that underlie the design of Workshop Schools schemes, as well as the main international policy trends that are reflected in the evolution of such design; and (b) on the other hand, to explore the causal accounts of these reforms when these consist on proposals to address youth transitions to employment, analysing them in terms of the attention paid to aspects more related to the individual or to the structure. Derived from these objectives, we intend to test the following research hypotheses:
  • H1: International trends regarding Education, Training and Employment policies are influencing and transforming the proposals of social change underlying the design of the Workshop Schools schemes, impacting the resources, opportunities and solutions provided to young people enrolled.
  • H2: Social change proposals underlying the Workshop School schemes have moved towards a progressive responsibilisation of young people in regard to their transitions into employment, focusing on individual and supply side factors.

1.1. Youth Policies’ Emphasis on the Individual

The European Group for Integrated Research (EGRIS 2002) studied the way in which public schemes and policies construct the notions of inequality they seek to address along with solutions they propose to these notions of inequality. They have done so by looking at whether these notions and solutions pay attention to the individual or rather to structural aspects. The individual-related ones would refer to aspects such as capabilities or deficits (personal, educational, occupational). In contrast, the structure-related aspects could be traced in terms of trajectories and opportunities the individual may find available in different systems, such as educational, training or employment systems.
This attention to both individual-related and structure-related aspects has also been addressed by Valiente et al. (2020), examining the current policy orientations underlying different Lifelong Learning policies in Europe, including Workshop Schools. Their findings also refer to a strong emphasis on individual-related aspects, which they relate to an international shift from the concept of lifelong learning towards employability derived from a process of “educationisation” of economic issues, thereby shifting the responsibility of improving employment levels towards young people and their skills. This same emphasis on employability and individuals has also been identified in recent policy reforms in Spain, such as the autonomic materialisation of regulations on dual professional training (Vázquez and Tarazona 2018).
Discourses linking lifelong learning and employability have been promoted by the European Union’s Lisbon Strategy, as part of a restructuring process towards a more economically competitive society of knowledge. According to Nóvoa (2010, 2013), the 2010 and 2020 Education and Training Schemes implied a move away from humanistic conceptions of learning towards a more instrumentalist approach highly concerned about individuals’ integration into the labour market. In this way, lifelong learning has come to be defined as “probably the most accentuated form of individualisation in a neoliberal context” (Stauber and Walther 2006, p. 259).
Meanwhile, the notion of employability has been questioned due to the way the responsibility to solve the welfare crisis has been forced upon and focused on citizens (Nóvoa 2010, 2013) in the various European and regional policies on aspects related to the individual (e.g., from a supply-side perspective), overlooking other considerations such as personal circumstances and other external aspects (e.g., from the demand-side perspective) (McQuaid and Lindsay 2005). In this way, most current definitions of employability focus on the increase of knowledge, competences, or skills individuals may possess, ignoring its relational dimension linked to factors such as other people in competition for employment as well as the broader socio-economic conditions within the labour market (Insa et al. 2016).
Thus, even when European training and employment policy has fostered a shift towards the individualisation and self-responsibilisation of the outcomes of individuals own transitions in relation to greater socio-structural problems (Crespo and Serrano 2013; Nóvoa 2010) from a historical perspective, it is possible to point out how this tendency has increased intensity in public bills and policies explicitly aimed at young people in certain regions, such as the United Kingdom. For instance, while McQuaid and Lindsay (2005) point out this tendency in different national and local policies around the UK, Roberts (2009) points out how during the 1980s United Kingdom’s emphasis shifted from the creation of better job opportunities for young people to making them responsible for improving their employability according to their own investment in their training.

1.2. Spain and Andalucia Socio-Economic Context: An Overview of Youth Transitions

From a more relational perspective, trying to address this phenomenon of youth unemployment, integrating not only aspects referring to individuals themselves but also the demands and dynamics present in the labour market, the evolution of youth transitions is not unrelated to the contextual conditions and influences in which young people shape their lives, or to the opportunities and support offered to them by the different devices, policies, public schemes and policies (Heinz et al. 2009).
A comprehensive study on the different types of transition regimes is one of the proposals formulated to approach the ways in which youth transitions are shaped within the various European countries. The elaboration of such a typology of transition regimes includes various dimensions (e.g., cultural, socio-economic, institutional, individual, and interactional) and levels (macro, meso, interactional and micro), trying to relate some of the particularly important aspects (e.g., social welfare, employment, and education) shaping the life course of young people and their transitions (Walther 2006, 2017). The regimes built on a national level, however, need to be updated given their static character (Walther 2017) in contrast to regional contexts relevant to young people’s opportunities and their transitions to employment (Scandurra et al. 2020).
Spain has been classified within the under-protective or infra-institutionalised regime (Walther 2006, 2017). Such a regime is characterised by a comprehensive education system, but with a factual educational differentiation: a high number of early school leavers and youth unemployment; a scarcity of reliable bridges between training, education, and employment; a high presence of precarious, informal, or temporary work; and a great relevance of the family in the provision of social security and in navigating the different risk levels during youth transitions. Andalucia not only shares the above characteristics, but also presents them in a more exacerbated form (Table 1).
Andalusian youth face a labour market characterised by higher levels of unemployment, temporality and part-time work than their Spanish and EU28 counterparts, both during the 2007–2008 crisis and in the subsequent recovery.
During the crisis, with the drop of sectors such as construction (11.70% of GDP in Spain and 14.80% in Andalusia in 2006; 5.63% and 6.13%, respectively, in 2014; Consejería de Economía, Conocimiento, Empresas y Universidad 2019), the unemployment rates of individuals with lower educational levels increased considerably in the Spanish territory (Herrera 2017). Moreover, they are the ones who have benefited the least from the subsequent recovery (e.g., Consejo de la Juventud de España 2017).
The characterization of specific phenomena faced and experienced by young people during their transitions to employment is helpful for the analysis of proposals for social change introduced by Workshop Schools schemes within the labour market framework, thus helping to situate our analysis within the broader contextual conditions going beyond those solely relating to individuals (i.e., the young people themselves who are the beneficiaries of these programmes).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Methodological Approach

The expertise about employment’s professional training in Spain has been gradually decentralised. Through the Royal Decree 467/2003 of 25th April, the management previously carried out solely by the National Institute of Employment in relation to training, employment and work in Andalucia was transferred directly to the region. For this reason, we firstly realised an exhaustive documentation search on the regulation of Workshop Schools schemes at a national level as well as at an Andalusian regional level.
Subsequently, following Blanco’s proposal, we elaborated and analysed the logical models underlying social change proposed by each of the main regulations shaping the scheme in both territories. These logic models can be understood as causal accounts of the change proposed by social programmes. The decision underlying the design of our analysis is based on research projects such as ABJOVES (Tarabini and Curran 2013) proposing this model to explore the ontology of public policies addressing early school leaving. We then compare its evolution in different ways and, finally, analyse and discuss the results obtained related to our theoretical framework.

2.2. Categories of Analysis

Explicit causal claims may be often hard to find in official regulatory documents of social programmes, as it’s the case of the Workshop Schools regulations. As an intent to solve this issue, we have adopted the approach of constructing logical models proposed by Blasco (2009), synthesised by Tarabini and Curran (2013). Our approach is composed of the following elements: contextual factors, problems (needs), target population, resources, activities, outputs, and impacts (Table 2).
We used the components included in Table 2 to deduce and construct causal accounts of social change proposals implicit in the regulation of Workshop Schools. In this vein, we tried to track the causal assumptions between social problems and solutions envisaged in these policy documents. We constructed such proposals in the form of logical models using “as” when we move to the right in the component list and “because” when we move to the left. Therefore, these logical models are constructed based on the following type of structure: “as we find certain contextual aspects and a certain problem that concerns a certain target population, we mobilise certain resources; as we mobilise certain resources, we implement certain activities; as we implement certain activities, we achieve certain outputs; and as we achieve certain outputs, we achieve certain impacts”.

2.3. Corpus of Documents

Documents can be divided into (a) 32 documents explicitly and directly regulating Workshop Schools schemes or clarifying such regulation; (b) 26 broader normative or legislative documents cited in the schemes’ specific regulation and basis, which allowed us to improve our understanding of the reforms taking place. Among the documents specifically regulating the Workshop Schools, 9 are national documents and 22 are regional documents. Regarding the documents based on these regulations, two of them are European, 14 are national and 10 are regional. A full list of the document analysed is included in Table S1 in supplementary materials.

2.4. Compilation of Documents

The compilation of documents has been done through a retrospective cascade search covering the years 1988 and 2020. To do so, firstly, we located the most recent documents regulating the scheme’s regulatory design. Once located, we then identified documents complementing them and the references including other regulations on which they are based, modified, or repealed. Once the new references were located, the previous process was repeated until saturation was reached, concluding at the first normative regulation of the scheme in 1988. From the legislative and normative references included in these documents, those providing relevant information for the proposed analyses (i.e., on the components of the logical model underlying the programme design) were selected. The reasons supporting the choice of the period selected for the analysis are the following:
(a)
The starting year selected for the analysis, 1988, corresponds to the beginning of the Workshop School scheme.
(b)
The end point of the analysis, 2020, corresponds with the publication of the last document related to the regulation explicitly addressing the design of the Workshop School scheme in Andalucia.
(c)
After this period of time between 1988–2020, the Workshop Schools disappeared in Andalucia with the publication of the Order of September 13th of 2021. This order regulated and introduced the Employment and Training scheme in Andalucia, a scheme showing substantial differences compared to the original Workshop Schools. For example, it is aimed at people aged 16 and above and not only young people (i.e., a person of age 60 could take part in the scheme). These and other differences have made us consider it as a new and different scheme from the one analysed in our paper and, therefore, it would require a relevant but separated analysis beyond the scope of our research, which covers 32 years from the creation to the disappearance of the Workshop School Scheme itself (1988–2020).

2.5. Data Analysis

Once the documents were located, the underlying logic models in the regulations were identified as proposed by Blasco (2009). This was done using the RQDA software (Huang 2016). Once the logic models were constructed from regulations substantially altering the design of the Workshop Schools (see Supplementary Materials), we developed different types of analyses. Firstly, a horizontal analysis, dealing with the causal narratives that make up each of the logic models. The second and third types of analysis are vertical. One is about the evolution of each of the components of the different models (e.g., whether the resources included in each regulation are maintained, reduced, or extended). The other one is a comparative of the causal narrative represented by each of the models. We fed these analyses with the contents of broader regulations governing the scheme. Finally, we discussed the results obtained in terms of the theoretical framework of this work.

3. Results

3.1. Evolution of Logic Models behind the Normative Design of Workshop Schools

Workshop Schools, since their implementation in 1985, have been maintained as a mixed training and employment scheme, regulated firstly at a national level and then at a regional level. For these schemes to be developed at a local level, they ought to be requested by the promoting entities (e.g., town councils), following the guidelines provided by the Orders established by the assigned administrations. Throughout the scheme, young people received a qualification after theoretical & practical training, and, in addition, they were trained and acquired work experience by being hired by the promoting entity itself, participating in projects with a social character related to the training provided.
Consequently, the analysis of the logic models underlying the scheme’s regulations shows its expected outcomes and impacts had always been related to the provision of qualifications, work experience, and a certification, factors which would favour the integration of young people into the labour market and/or facilitate a reduction of youth unemployment. At the end of the scheme, young people could be employed (and thus contribute to the expected impacts) working for others or through self-employment. However, not all the actors, resources, and activities mobilised to achieve these expected impacts have remained constant in terms of their relative importance and may have been influenced by broader policy trends.
The analyses undertaken refer to three main phases in the evolution of the logic models on which the Workshop Schools are based. The first one is characterised by an emphasis on the role of the scheme as a generator and creator of employment. The second one, more closely related to lifelong learning, focuses on the “training-employment for others” axis. The third and current one, with a greater emphasis on the notion of employability, goes deeper into the professionalising aspect of training and its accreditation. Workshop Schools, therefore, have maintained their nomenclature, but their logic models have been modified. Each of these phases is described below, highlighting their key characteristics. The end of each phase represents the peak of differential trends in the type of change they propose as well as the emergence of a different phase.

3.2. First Stage: An Emphasis on Job Creation

This first stage covers the period between the first exhaustive regulation after the design of the scheme, the Order of 29th March 1988 which regulated the schemes of Workshop and Trade Schools, and the Order of 6th October 1998 (Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social 1988). The scheme changed from having a duration of one to three years (Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social 1988) to a duration of one to two years (Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social 1994). Its beneficiaries, called student-workers, must be compulsorily rather than preferably under 25 years of age as is stated by the Order of 3rd August 1994 (Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social 1994). During this stage, in addition to maintaining the resources and activities included in its initial regulation related to the provision of training and work experience, the design of the scheme progressively deepened its role as a creator of employment. Likewise, its resources and activities were modified to achieve other impacts, such as the possible re-entry of young people into the educational system.
An emphasis on the scheme’s job creation objectives was reflected in its inclusion amongst “employment-generating initiatives” (Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social 1994, p. 25894). A role was attributed to the scheme as a “generator of entrepreneurial initiatives” (Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social 1994, p. 25894). In fact, some of the reforms were intended to favour “a higher quality and impact on job creation” (Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales 1998, p. 35515). In addition, it was expected to dynamize the community in which it had to be implemented and was part of “integral employment plans (…) responding to the demands of the labour market seeking to activate development of the various regions, generating wealth and, consequently, jobs” (Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social 1994, p. 25895). These plans were programmed to be reinforced by the introduction of other actors such as the Promotion and Development Units.
During this phase, the scheme design also diversified and expanded the actors, resources and activities aimed at the creation and dynamization of employment. Firstly, in addition to professional training and other types of training related to business management were provided, and this action was extended to the whole scheme, with an intention of favouring the “promotion and discovery of entrepreneurial initiatives” (Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social 1994, p. 25896). Moreover, with the introduction of other actors, such as the Entrepreneurship Centres, the support, information, and advice provided to young people with self-employment initiatives goes to having a duration of maximum six months after the scheme was introduced (Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social 1988), a difference from “a period of time that guarantees their [the initiatives’] economic viability” (Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social 1994, p. 25897). In addition, it was also extended to those making their transitions to employment.
Regarding other possible impacts, such as the return to the educational system, the scheme included Compensatory Education activities for the subgroup of participants who failed to pass their degree in Secondary Education (Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social 1988). Subsequently, these activities were renamed “complementary basic training” and were aimed at those who had not attained the objectives of their GCSE (Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social 1994). In addition, it was also recognised as an explicit contribution to a possible return of young people to the educational system through access tests as well as their incorporation to the labour market.

3.3. Second Stage: Lifelong Learning and the “Training-Employment Axis”

This second stage extends from the Order of 14th November 2001 (Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales 2001) at a national level, to the Order of 5th December 2006 (Consejería de Empleo 2006), which became regional in scope. During this time, the design of the scheme was strongly defined by two trends: a reduction in the emphasis placed on job creation on the one hand, placing more emphasis on labour market insertion; and by the inclusion of a greater number of activities related to a broader spectrum of training on the other hand. The latter was closely related to the promotion of lifelong learning and to the Organic Law 5/2002 of 19th June 2002 on Qualifications and Vocational Training (Gobierno de España 2002).
The first trend was reflected on a reduction of the rhetoric of the scheme’s objectives related to the creation and promotion of employment (Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales 2001; Consejería de Empleo y Desarrollo Tecnológico 2004; Consejería de Empleo 2006) as well as a reduction of resources allocated, such as the resources destined to Entrepreneurship Centres to which not even a specific article was dedicated to (Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales 2001). Likewise, young people with self-employment initiatives became priority groups to be referred to other resources or external aid and technical assistance (Consejería de Empleo 2006) after the scheme goes back to have a duration of six months (Consejería de Empleo y Desarrollo Tecnológico 2004; Consejería de Empleo 2006) instead of “as long as necessary”. At the same time, their insertion in the labour market was reinforced by the possibility of internships in different companies (Consejería de Empleo y Desarrollo Tecnológico 2004), although this measure would be abolished only two years later (Consejería de Empleo 2006).
The second trend is related to lifelong learning and the priority areas of training set out in the Organic Law 5/2002 (Gobierno de España 2002). A new module on computer literacy was introduced (Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales 2001), later extended to the so-called “compulsory” or “complementary” modules of computer literacy, occupational risk prevention, environmental awareness, promotion of entrepreneurship, gender equality and equality of disadvantaged groups (Consejería de Empleo y Desarrollo Tecnológico 2004). In addition, during this stage, Workshop Schools continue to offer other training activities, such as “complementary basic training” for those who have not passed their GCSE.

3.4. Third Stage: Employability, Training and Accreditation

This stage went from the Order of 28th April 2011 (Consejería de Empleo 2011) to the Resolution of 7th December 2016 (Consejería de Empleo, Empresa y Comercio 2016a) and includes all the documents derived from its development. The progress of this stage is marked by structural reforms, fraud cases and the judicialization of professional training for employment in Andalucia, something which led to a suspension of new funding calls from 2012 (Ojeda Avilés 2015) until the Order of 2nd June 2016 (Consejería de Empleo, Empresa y Comercio 2016b). In addition, following the Law 30/2015 (Gobierno de España 2015), a modality of competitive tendering of grant awards was included in the bill for entities competing against each other to access resources to develop their projects.
Throughout this third stage, employability became a major trend. While the scheme’s role as a generator of employment progressively lost importance, increasingly emphasised the promotion of wage employment as opposed to self-employment. At the same time, a professionalising aspect of training gained relevance, while the training aspect related to lifelong learning diminished. Finally, the accreditation role of the scheme was reinforced due to the creation of professional certificates derived from the professional training subsystem (e.g., Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales 2007; Gobierno de España 2015).
The importance given to employability was reflected in the guidelines and measures included in the Order of 28th April 2011 (Consejería de Empleo 2011) prioritising young people with a training deficit in order to increase their chances of finding and keeping a job by increasing their employability. It could be understood that this group of young people were the most affected by the onset and development of the Great Crisis of 2007–2008. The consequences of this crisis on young people’s living conditions, their disadvantaged situation and the promotion of employability and flexicurity would also be present in other documents related to the regulation of the scheme (e.g., Gobierno de España 2011; Gobierno de España 2015).
In addition to the promotion of employability, the “training-employment as an employee” axis was further deepened. Once again, the possibility of offering professional internships in companies was enabled (Consejería de Empleo, Empresa y Comercio 2016b), however were not encouraged amongst the assessing application criteria. Instead, incentives were given to hiring commitments with the promoting entity or other private entities and companies. It is particularly noteworthy that the latest call for projects removed the possibility of applying for the incorporation of Promotion and Development Units, which contributed to broader development plans in which the scheme was inserted (Consejería de Empleo, Empresa y Comercio 2016a).
The reduction of training to its technical and professionalising aspect was also reflected in a reduction of the duration to one year (Consejería de Empleo, Empresa y Comercio 2016a). This reduction was accompanied by the reformulation of the complementary basic training activities for those without a Primary Education diploma, going from preparing for the entrance exams to obtaining a level 1 certificate of professionalism or level 2 in key competences. The inclusion of the “youth employability workshop”, included in the Order of 28th April 2011 (Consejería de Empleo 2011), aimed to provide guidance on educational pathways and certificates of professionalism, was also eliminated. The latest call for projects also removed the possibility of including complementary modules related to the promotion of lifelong learning (e.g., computer literacy, environmental education), except for the possibility (not the obligation) to include those related to key competences.
Finally, it is worth noting the importance given to the accreditation of training during this period (Consejería de Empleo, Empresa y Comercio 2016b), despite being present since the Order of 3rd August 1994 (Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social 1994). On this occasion, accreditation began to take the form of certificates of professionalism based on labour market surveys.

3.5. Focus on the Individual or Structural Aspects in the Proposals Outlined within the Scheme Design

The analyses carried out concerning the logic models underlying the design of Workshop Schools allow us to extract some answers about the attention paid to aspects related to either individuals or the main structure in order to achieve the proposed change. Historically, the scheme provided training, accreditation, and work experience for the young participants to facilitate their integration into the labour market.
However, the regulations of the very first period, from the Order of 29th March 1988 (Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social 1988) to the Order of 6th October 1998 (Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales 1998), with a greater emphasis on job creation, went further in providing solutions that attempted to address aspects related to the structure. This was achieved with two different approaches. Firstly, with an approach less risk-laden on the individual, through a broader development of projects seeking to revitalise the counties and communities where the scheme was implemented. Secondly, through formulas related to the promotion of self-employment which entailed more risks for young people, albeit offering a series of support resources for their initiatives.
During the second period, from the Order of 14th November 2001 (Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales 2001) to the Order of 5th December 2006 (Consejería de Empleo 2006), the scheme design ceased to emphasise its employment-generating role and the resources allocated to this end also decreased, reducing its focus on structural aspects. The solutions became more focused on individual aspects, related to lifelong learning, deepening its training component, with a greater importance given to the “training-employment-employee” axis.
During the third period, from the Order of 28th April 2011 (Consejería de Empleo 2011) to the Resolution of 7th December 2016 (Consejería de Empleo, Empresa y Comercio 2016a) together with all the documents created in its development, the scheme was particularly targeted at young people with a training deficit facing particular “difficulties in entering or re-entering employment” due to the consequences of the economic crisis (e.g., Consejería de Empleo 2011). In the latest regulations, this concern became a priority to those who had not obtained their GCSE qualification. While the scheme was still paying attention to the deficit (e.g., training), the selection criteria of the scheme moved towards a “lowest possible deficit” approach. Indeed, priority in the access criteria was given to those young people with higher levels in (a) application criteria; (b) basic skills and (c) employability (Consejería de Empleo, Empresa y Comercio 2017).
The solution providing young people “with a deficit” is related to employability, understood as an individual solution to well-known structural problems, such as youth unemployment as well as the consequences of the crisis. Moreover, resources on job creation, which could contribute to address these structural barriers, were further reduced, and the technical-professionalising side of training were given priority at the same time as the majority of training activities related to lifelong learning, in addition to those of complementary basic training, were withdrawn or reformulated. This meant a reduction in the support given by the scheme to those returning to the education system, although the scheme was now explicitly targeting those who had not obtained secondary education credentials.

4. Discussion

The analysis carried out has included all the regulations affecting the Workshop Schools scheme, from its origins in 1988 up to 2020, both in Spain and Andalucia. Due to a decentralisation process of the competences related to professional training for employment, our study does not cover all the state regulations after 2001 or their regulation development in other communities. However, given the number and representativeness of the documents analysed, our analysis contributes to current research on public schemes and policies aimed at addressing youth transitions to employment, lifelong learning, and dual vocational training for employment.
These analyses, focusing on the historical evolution of the scheme, have shown how regulations governing its design have been influenced by international trends, such as lifelong learning or job creation. Currently, the shift towards employability in European education policies (Nóvoa 2010) is also influencing initial dual vocational training programmes (Vázquez and Tarazona 2018) or Workshop Schools (Valiente et al. 2020).
Based on the EGRIS (2002) classification, the articulation and components of the logic models underlying the design of Workshop Schools have increasingly focused on the aspects related to the individual in the solutions they propose. However, this is not only an evolution present in the Workshop Schools scheme, but also in other public programmes and policies aimed at addressing youth transitions in other European countries, which would have shifted from perspectives more focused on the creation of opportunities to perspectives associated with individuals’ own responsibility for their transitions (e.g., Roberts 2009). Specifically, the design of Workshop Schools would have gradually reduced the actors, resources and activities related to job creation and deepened aspects related to youth training, accreditation and employment. From a relational or interactive perspective of employability, the proposals of change tend to focus gradually on aspects related to the individual (e.g., supply-side) and not on external aspects (e.g., demand-side) (McQuaid and Lindsay 2005).
Precisely, those second and third phases of evolution with a greater transcendence of ideas on lifelong learning and employability in the logic models underlying the design of the scheme, were accompanied by greater self-responsibility of the individuals themselves for their transitions to employment. These were ideas already criticised for their marked individualising and self-responsibilisation character (Crespo and Serrano 2013; Nóvoa 2010; Stauber and Walther 2006). In fact, this increased self-responsibilisation occurred in a context of opportunity structures (Roberts 2009) which can be seen as less receptive to young people as their living conditions would have been deeply eroded in the region (Table 1) during the Great Crisis, especially for those with lower educational levels (e.g., Consejo de la Juventud de España 2017). In contrast to the first stage characterised by a high youth unemployment, policymakers decided to maintain, during and after the crisis, those more subject-centred perspectives initiated years earlier, since 2001, when youth unemployment was progressively decreasing.
In the last edition of the Workshop School projects, the scheme design also dedicated less effort to unlocking possible routes within the educational system, declining its contribution to the possible impacts related to the provision of other options for young people during their transitions along with the approach of structural barriers. This would have reduced the training to its most professionalising aspect, leaving aside a broader character related to more traditional and humanistic conceptions of lifelong learning (Nóvoa 2013). The scheme does not seem to be so concerned with this type of learning which favours the participation of young people with lower levels of education or other training options. The activities aimed at the preparation of educational entrance exams, which in practice were also aimed at young people preparing to obtain their GCSE diploma, would have also disappeared (Barroso-Hurtado 2019). In this way, the potential options for those without lower secondary education were now limited to a 5% of available vacancies in the differentiated partial offer of Vocational Training Programmes (Order of 1 June 2016).
At the same time, with the articulation of training through Certificates of Professionalism, the accrediting aspect of the scheme was extended, and young people’s options related to pursuing new routes within the subsystem of vocational training for employment were increased. The scheme did not take advantage of the opportunity to diversify the routes that young people could follow after the completion of the scheme, restricting them for the most part, then, to this subsystem. Such a reduction of possibilities could perhaps be redirecting young people who leave the education system prematurely towards the training system and the labour market, contributing to re-standardize their transitions and contemplating, to a lesser extent, a possible return to formal education or vocational training.
Specifically, the design of Workshop Schools scheme offers us relevant information on how to improve our understanding of the reforms on vocational training for employment and concretely, dual training in Spain and Andalucia. The development of the regulated initial dual vocational training system (Vázquez and Tarazona 2018) and the professional training for employment scheme studied here, have the risk of generating dynamics of young people’s self-responsibilisation in relation to their transitions, especially when these seem to take place in a context of unfavourable living conditions. The solutions seem to be proposed in terms of adaptation or improvement of their qualifications, at the risk of reducing the resources allocated to intervene on structural aspects and to favour their participation in other possible spheres and routes.

5. Conclusions

Different international trends, such as job creation and the promotion of lifelong learning and employability, have had a strong influence in the logical models underlying the regulatory documents of the Workshop Schools schemes and, therefore, the social problems and solutions the scheme seeks to provide to them. Especially since the introduction and higher mobilisation of the notion of employability, both problems and solutions are increasingly framed in terms of a higher responsabilisation of individuals rather than in terms of broader socio-structural problems. We can therefore appreciate similar reforms and policy trends in the dual professional training areas to those identified in the recent reforms of the dual professional education areas, where employability has also been understood in a narrow and supply side manner (Vázquez and Tarazona 2018). This increased responsibility on individuals regarding their transitions may be especially worrying in national and regional contexts, where young people face lower opportunities during their transitions into the labour market, increasing pressure on youngsters and risking making them responsible for different structural deficits.
In future research, it would be interesting to explore how these regulatory reforms related to employability, the reduction of resources offered by the Workshop School scheme and the changes in its governance (e.g., economic rationality and competition for public resources) are impacting through their implementation on how certain groups of young people are accessing the scheme as well as their transitions after its completion. This might be reflected, for example, in the possible preferred access of young people “with the lower deficit possible” or in possible constraints regarding the work of these kinds of schemes as Second Chance Schools (Salva-Mut et al. 2016). All of this may have serious social justice implications for young people who are socially disadvantaged. Alongside this, it will be interesting to study the proposals of changes that have been introduced in the new scheme based in Workshop Schools from 2020 to the present, and how these are framed in a shifting context within the field of VET.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/socsci11100446/s1. Table S1: Documentary corpus; Figure S1: Logical model underlying the Order of March 29th 1988; Figure S2: Logical model underlying the Order of 3 August 1994; national regulation of the Workshop School programme; Figure S3: Logical model underlying the Order of 14 November 2001; national regulation of the Workshop School programme; Figure S4. Logical model underlying the Order of 8 March 2004, and its Rules of procedure (Resolution of 14 July 2004); regional regulation of the Workshop School programme; Figure S5: Logical model underlying the Order of 5 December 2006; regional regulation of the Workshop School programme; Figure S6. Logical model underlying the Order of 28 April 2011; regional regulation of the Workshop School programme; Figure S6. Logical model underlying the Order of 2 June 2016; regional regulation of the Workshop School programme; Figure S8. Logical model underlying the Order of 7 December 2016; regional regulation of the Workshop School programme.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.B.-H. and M.T.S.; methodology, D.B.-H., M.T.S. and L.M.G.-P.; software, D.B.-H. and L.M.G.-P.; formal analysis, D.B.-H. and M.T.S.; investigation, D.B.-H.; resources, D.B.-H., M.T.S. and L.M.G.-P.; data curation, D.B.-H. and M.T.S.; writing—original draft preparation, D.B.-H.; writing—review and editing, D.B.-H., M.T.S. and L.M.G.-P.; visualisation, L.M.G.-P.; supervision, D.B.-H., M.T.S. and L.M.G.-P.; project administration, D.B.-H.; funding acquisition, D.B.-H. and M.T.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The sources that have financed the publication of this article are the following: IOAP financed by the University of Malaga; APC cost have been financed by the research group “Políticas y Reformas Educativas” of the Andalusian Plan for Research, Development and Innovation (PAIDI); Proofreading cost has been possible thanks to the funding granted by the European Regional Development Fund (FEDER) of the European Union and by the Junta de Extremadura (Ministry of Economy, Science and Digital Agenda), to the EduTransforma-T Research Group (SEJ054, GR21141). This grant has been co-financed by FEDER funds, FEDER operational programme of Extremadura.

Data Availability Statement

The data used in this analysis can be provided on request to the authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Barroso-Hurtado, Domingo. 2019. El impacto del programa de Escuelas Taller en el curso de vida de los jóvenes adultos de Andalucía: Una evaluación realista. Granada: Universidad de Granada. [Google Scholar]
  2. Blasco, Jaume. 2009. Guia pràctica 3 Avaluació del disseny. Collecció Ivàlua de guies pràctiques sobre avaluació de polítiques públiques. Available online: http://www.ivalua.cat/documents/1/16_02_2010_10_23_20_Guia3_Disseny_Juliol2009_final.pdf (accessed on 2 August 2022).
  3. Consejería de Economía, Conocimiento, Empresas y Universidad. 2019. Instituto de Estadística y Cartografía de Andalucía. Junta de Andalucía. Available online: https://www.juntadeandalucia.es/institutodeestadisticaycartografia (accessed on 2 August 2022).
  4. Consejería de Empleo. 2006. Orden de 5 de diciembre de 2006, por la que se regulan los programas de Escuelas Taller, Casas de Oficio, Talleres de Empleo y Unidades de Promoción y Desarrollo en la Junta de Andalucía, y se establecen las bases reguladoras de la concesión de ayudas públicas a dichos programas. Boletín Oficial de la Junta de Andalucía, December 15. [Google Scholar]
  5. Consejería de Empleo. 2011. Orden de 28 de abril de 2011, por la que se aprueba el Programa Integral de Empleo para Personas Jóvenes en Andalucía y se modifican las Órdenes que se citan. Boletín Oficial de la Junta de Andalucía, May 13. [Google Scholar]
  6. Consejería de Empleo, Empresa y Comercio. 2017. Resolución de la Dirección General de Formación Profesional para el Empleo, por la que se regula el protocolo de actuación en los procedimientos de selección del alumnado trabajador en los proyectos de Escuelas Taller y Talleres de Empleo aprobados en el marco de la Convocatoria aprobada por Resolución de 7 de diciembre de 2016 de esta misma Dirección General. Available online: https://www.juntadeandalucia.es/export/drupaljda/RESOLUCION_SELECCION_ALUMNADO_TRABAJADOR_0.pdf (accessed on 2 August 2022).
  7. Consejería de Empleo y Desarrollo Tecnológico. 2004. Orden de 8 de marzo de 2004, por la que se regulan los Programas de Escuelas Taller, Casas de Oficios, Talleres de Empleo y Unidades de Promoción y Desarrollo y se establecen las bases reguladoras de la concesión de ayudas públicas a dichos programas. Boletín Oficial de la Junta de Andalucía, April 16. [Google Scholar]
  8. Consejo de la Juventud de España. 2017. Observatorio de Emancipación no 14 (Primer semestre de 2017). Versión de Andalucía. Available online: http://www.cje.org/descargas/cje7256.pdf (accessed on 2 August 2022).
  9. Consejería de Empleo, Empresa y Comercio. 2016a. Resolución de 7 de diciembre de 2016, de la Dirección General de Formación Profesional para el Empleo por la que se convoca la concesión de subvenciones para incentivar la realización de Escuelas Taller y Talleres de Empleo conforme a lo previsto en la Orden de la Consejería de Empleo, Empresa y Comercio de 2 de junio de 2016 por la que se regulan los programas de Escuelas Taller, Casas de Oficios, Talleres de Empleo y Unidades de Promoción y Desarrollo en la Junta de Andalucía y se establecen las bases reguladoras para la concesión de ayudas en régimen de concurrencia competitiva a dichos programas. Boletín Oficial de la Junta de Andalucía, December 14. [Google Scholar]
  10. Consejería de Empleo, Empresa y Comercio. 2016b. Orden de 2 de junio de 2016, de la Consejería de Empleo, Empresa y Comercio por la que se regulan los programas de Escuelas Taller, Casas de Oficios, Talleres de Empleo y Unidades de Promoción y Desarrollo en la Junta de Andalucía, y se establecen las bases reguladoras para la concesión de ayudas públicas en régimen de concurrencia competitiva a dichos programas. Boletín Oficial de la Junta de Andalucía, June 7. [Google Scholar]
  11. Crespo, Eduardo, and Amparo Serrano. 2013. Las paradojas de las políticas de empleo europeas: De la justicia a la terapia. Universitas Psychologica 12: 1111–24. Available online: https://doi.org/10/11144/Javeriana.UPSY12-4.ppee (accessed on 2 August 2022). [CrossRef]
  12. EGRIS (European Group for Integrated Research). 2002. Leading or Misleading Trajectories? Concepts and Perspectives. In Misleading Trajectories Integration Policies for Young Adults in Europe? Edited by Andreas Walther and Stauber Barbara. Berlin: Springer, pp. 117–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Gobierno de España. 2002. Ley Orgánica 5/2002, de 19 de junio, de las Cualificaciones y de la Formación Profesional. Boletín Oficial del Estado, June 20. [Google Scholar]
  14. Gobierno de España. 2011. Real Decreto-ley 3/2011, de 18 de febrero, de medidas urgentes para la mejora de la empleabilidad y la reforma de las políticas activas de empleo. Boletín Oficial del Estado, February 19. [Google Scholar]
  15. Gobierno de España. 2015. Ley 30/2015, de 9 de septiembre, por la que se regula el Sistema de Formación Profesional para el empleo en el ámbito laboral. Boletín Oficial del Estado, September 10. [Google Scholar]
  16. Heinz, Walter R., Ansgar Weymann, and Johannes Huinik. 2009. General introduction. In The Life Course Reader: Individuals and Societies Across Time. Frankfurt: Campus Verlang, pp. 15–30. [Google Scholar]
  17. Herrera, Damián. 2017. Empleabilidad versus sobrecualificación. Desajuste entre formación y empleo en las trayectorias laborales de los jóvenes titulados en España. Sociología del Trabajo 89: 29–52. [Google Scholar]
  18. Huang, Ronggui. 2016. RQDA: R-based Qualitative Data Analysis. R package version 0.2-8. Available online: http://rqda.r-forge.r-project.org/ (accessed on 2 August 2022).
  19. Insa, Lucia Inmaculada Llinares, Juan Jose Zacarés González, and Ana Isabel Córdoba Iñesta. 2016. Discussing employability: Current perspectives and key elements from a bioecological model. Employee Relations 38: 961–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. McQuaid, Ronald W., and Colin Lindsay. 2005. The Concept of Employability. Urban Studies 42: 197–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales. 1998. Orden de 6 de octubre de 1998, por la que se modifica la de 3 de agosto de 1994, por la que se regulan los programas de Escuelas Taller y Casas de Oficios, las Unidades de Promoción y Desarrollo, y los Centros de Iniciativa Empresarial, y se establecen las bases reguladoras de la concesión de subvenciones públicas a dichos programas. Boletín Oficial del Estado, October 29. [Google Scholar]
  22. Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales. 2001. Orden de 14 de noviembre de 2001 por la que se regulan el programa de Escuelas Taller y Casas de Oficios y las Unidades de Promoción y Desarrollo y se establecen las bases reguladoras de la concesión de subvenciones públicas a dichos programas. Boletín Oficial del Estado, November 21. [Google Scholar]
  23. Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales. 2007. Real Decreto 395/2007, de 23 de marzo, por el que se regula el subsistema de formación profesional para el empleo. Boletín Oficial del Estado, April 11. [Google Scholar]
  24. Ministerio de Trabajo y Economía Social. 2020. Programa de Escuelas Taller y Casas de Oficios y Unidades de Promoción y Desarrollo. Ministerio de Trabajo y Economía Social. Available online: https://www.mites.gob.es/es/guia/texto/guia_4/contenidos/guia_4_10_6.htm (accessed on 2 August 2022).
  25. Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social. 1994. Orden de 3 de agosto de 1994 por la que se regulan los programas de Escuelas Taller y Casas de Oficios, las Unidades de Promoción y Desarrollo y los Centros de Iniciativa Empresarial y se establecen las bases reguladoras de la concesión de subvenciones públicas a dichos programas. Boletín Oficial del Estado, August 11. [Google Scholar]
  26. Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social. 1988. Orden de 29 de marzo de 1988 por la que se regulan los programas de Escuelas Taller y Casas de Oficios. Boletín Oficial del Estado, March 30. [Google Scholar]
  27. Nóvoa, António. 2010. Governing without governing: The formation of a European educational space. In The Routledge International Handbook of the Sociology of Education. London: Routledge, pp. 264–73. [Google Scholar]
  28. Nóvoa, António. 2013. The blindness of Europe: New fabrications in the European Educational space. SISYPHUS Journal of Education 1: 104–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ojeda Avilés, Antonio. 2015. La Formación Profesional para el Empleo desde el reproche penal: El caso andaluz. Revista de Trabajo y Seguridad Social 388: 17–59. [Google Scholar]
  30. Rambla, Xavier. 2018. The politics of early school leaving: How do the European Union and the Spanish educational authorities ‘frame’ the policy and formulate a ‘theory of change’. Journal of European Integration 40: 83–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Roberts, Ken. 2009. Opportunity structures then and now. Journal of Education and Work 22: 355–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Salva-Mut, Francesca, Joan Nadal-Cavaller, and Maria Agnès Melià-Barceló. 2016. Itinerarios de éxito y rupturas en la educación de segunda oportunidad. Revista Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales, Niñez y Juventud 14: 1405–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Scandurra, Rosario, Ruggero Cefalo, and Yuri Kazepov. 2020. School to work outcomes during the Great Recession, is the regional scale relevant for young people’s life chances? Journal of Youth Studies 24: 441–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Stauber, Barbara, and Andreas Walther. 2006. De-standardised pathways to adulthood: European perspectives on informal learning in informal networks. Papers 79: 242–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Tarabini, Aina, and Marta Curran. 2013. Políticas de lucha contra el abandono escolar en España: Hacia la definición de un modelo teórico-metodológico. RASE: Revista de la Asociación de Sociología de la Educación 5: 91–99. [Google Scholar]
  36. Tarabini, Aina, Marta Curran, Alejandro Montes, and Lluís Parcerisa. 2018. The politics of educational success: A realist evaluation of early school leaving policies in Catalonia (Spain). Critical Studies in Education 59: 364–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Valiente, Oscar, Queralt Capsada-Munsech, and Jan Peter G. de Otero. 2020. Educationalisation of youth unemployment through lifelong learning policies in Europe. European Educational Research Journal 19: 525–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Vázquez, José Javier Vila, and María José Chisvert Tarazona. 2018. Luces y sombras de la formación profesional dual en el sistema educativo español. Valencia: Tirant Humanidades. [Google Scholar]
  39. Walther, Andreas. 2006. Regimes of youth transitions: Choice, flexibility and security in young people’s experiences across different European contexts. Young 14: 119–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Walther, Andreas. 2017. Support across life course regimes. A comparative model of social work as construction of social problems, needs, and rights. Journal of Social Work 17: 277–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Indicators concerning living conditions in the European Union (EU28), Spain (ES) and Andalusia (AND), in percentages.
Table 1. Indicators concerning living conditions in the European Union (EU28), Spain (ES) and Andalusia (AND), in percentages.
Both SexesMenWomen
UE28ESANDUE28ESANDUE28ESAND
2006Early school leaving15.3 30.33817.436.744.613.223.631.2
Overall unemployment8.28.512.67.66.49.3911.417.7
Youth unemployment17.517.921.717.2151717.921.527.9
Temporality40.766-40.765.1-40.867-
Part–time employment25.221.1-18.413.4-33.531.5-
2013Early school leaving11.923.628.713.627.231.910.219.825.5
Overall unemployment10.926.136.210.825.634.810.926.738
Youth unemployment23.855.56624.456.265.22354.666.8
Temporality42.264.7-42.264.7-42.264.7-
Part–time employment3239.8-24.733.2-40.547.2-
2017Early school leaving10.618.323.512.121.828.78.914.518
Overall unemployment7.617.225.57.415.722.97.91928.7
Youth unemployment16.838.64917.539.548.816.137.449.3
Temporality4473.3-43.972.4-44.174.4-
Part–time employment32.338.2-25.429.6-40.548-
Note: Elaborated by the authors based on Eurostat. Indicator age ranges: early school leavers (18–24), general unemployment (15 and over), youth unemployment (15–24), temporary employment (15–24) and part–time employment (15–24).
Table
Table 2. Components of the logical models.
Table 2. Components of the logical models.
Problem (needs)Unsatisfactory problem or situation that is intended to be addressed through the programme to change it, that is, the reason why the programme is articulated.
Contextual factorsThe design and operation of the programme are influenced by different contextual circumstances.
Target groupIt is made up of the people or groups that the programme intends to address. The programme is expected to work and operate differently based on the different subgroups that make up this population.
ResourcesThey are what is necessary to carry out the activities. They comprise different types of resources, such as human, financial, or material.
ActivitiesThey are what is carried out in the intervention with the available resources.
OutputsThese are the specific impacts produced on the target population from the activities carried out.
ImpactsThey represent the short/medium/long term effects that, in relation to the initial problem, the programme presents on its participants or society.
Own elaboration from Blasco (2009, p. 11 y 13) and Tarabini and Curran (2013, p. 93).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Barroso-Hurtado, D.; Guerrero-Puerta, L.M.; Torres Sánchez, M. Workshop Schools: From Employment Creation to Employability. Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 446. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11100446

AMA Style

Barroso-Hurtado D, Guerrero-Puerta LM, Torres Sánchez M. Workshop Schools: From Employment Creation to Employability. Social Sciences. 2022; 11(10):446. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11100446

Chicago/Turabian Style

Barroso-Hurtado, Domingo, Laura M. Guerrero-Puerta, and Mónica Torres Sánchez. 2022. "Workshop Schools: From Employment Creation to Employability" Social Sciences 11, no. 10: 446. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11100446

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop