Where Should Vocational Education Be Taught? Exploring Different Models

Vocational education sounds simple until you ask one basic question: where should it actually be taught? Should a plumbing or retail course sit inside a regular school timetable, or does it need its own dedicated campus? Should students learn on a factory floor instead of a classroom, or would a flexible, self-paced option work better for someone who cannot attend school every day? India has experimented with all four approaches, and each one solves a different problem. Understanding these models helps explain why the country’s skilling landscape looks the way it does today, and why no single approach has replaced the others.

Why the location of vocational courses matters 🔗

The location of a vocational course is not just an administrative detail. It decides who can access the training, how closely it connects to real jobs, and how much it costs to run. A course tucked inside an existing school reaches students who are already enrolled, but it competes for time with academic subjects. A dedicated vocational institute can build a sharper, industry-focused curriculum, but it needs its own infrastructure and staff. A partnership with a company solves the practical-experience problem, but it depends on employers being willing to participate. And an open, distance-based centre serves people who cannot attend any physical institution regularly. Policymakers in India have leaned on all four models at different points, often running them side by side.

School-based vocational training: skilling within the regular classroom 🔗

The most widely used model in India integrates vocational subjects directly into the school system. Under the Vocational Education component of Samagra Shiksha, students in classes IX and X take a vocational subject alongside their regular academic load, and from class XI onward it becomes a compulsory elective. The scheme also allows schools to introduce vocational exposure as early as classes VI to VIII, so students get a feel for practical skills before they have to commit to a specific trade, as detailed on the Samagra Shiksha portal.

How the curriculum and job roles are decided 🔗

This model works because the curriculum is not designed in isolation. The Pandit Sunderlal Sharma Central Institute of Vocational Education (PSSCIVE), a unit of NCERT, develops the courseware in consultation with Sector Skill Councils, the industry bodies responsible for setting skill standards in each trade. As of the latest guidelines, 138 job roles have been approved for introduction as skill subjects from classes IX to XII, spanning sectors such as retail, healthcare, IT, and agriculture. Every student taking a vocational subject also studies a set of employability modules covering communication, self-management, basic digital literacy, entrepreneurship, and green skills, which are mandatory components of the scheme.

The strength of this model is reach. Because it rides on the existing school network, it does not require new buildings or a parallel administrative system. The weakness is depth. A vocational lab inside a regular school often has limited equipment and a single trainer, so students get exposure rather than full mastery of a trade.

Independent vocational schools: Haryana’s dedicated institution model 🔗

A second approach sets up institutions that exist purely to teach vocational skills, separate from the general academic stream. Haryana has become the most cited example of this in India. The state’s vocational education programme began in the early 1980s in a handful of institutions and has expanded steadily since, moving through several rounds of reform as it aligned with the National Skills Qualification Framework, as documented in an academic review of skill development initiatives in the state.

The scale today is significant. Haryana currently runs its vocational programme across 1,398 government schools, supported by 2,238 vocational laboratories, with over 2 lakh students enrolled in the current academic session. Training is offered across 15 sectors, including beauty and wellness, automobile, healthcare, retail, banking and finance, and construction. To connect this training with real jobs, the state also organises Rozgar Melas, or employment fairs, in every district every year, as reported by The Week.

Why dedicated institutions help 🔗

Because these institutions focus only on vocational training, they can design a curriculum entirely around market demand rather than fitting it around board exam schedules. They can also invest more heavily in trade-specific equipment, since that is their core function rather than an add-on. The trade-off is that dedicated institutions need dedicated funding, and states with smaller education budgets find it harder to replicate this model at scale.

Industry-school partnerships: bringing the shop floor into the syllabus 🔗

No amount of classroom simulation fully substitutes for hands-on experience in a real workplace. That is the logic behind pairing schools and colleges directly with employers, so that students split their time between structured coursework and on-the-job training. The government has backed this idea through the National Apprenticeship Promotion Scheme (NAPS), approved by the Union Cabinet with an outlay of Rs. 10,000 crore and a target of training 50 lakh apprentices. Under the scheme, the government shares 25 percent of an apprentice’s stipend directly with the employer, which lowers the cost barrier for companies willing to train young people, as described in the official announcement from the Prime Minister’s Office.

What this model solves that others cannot 🔗

Industry partnerships fix a problem that both school-based and standalone vocational institutions struggle with: keeping pace with how a trade actually changes on the ground. Equipment, processes, and safety standards evolve faster in a live factory or workshop than they do in a textbook revision cycle. A student who trains partly inside a company also builds a professional network before graduating, which matters a great deal in sectors where hiring runs on referrals and demonstrated competence rather than degrees alone. The limitation is dependence on employer goodwill. Not every trade has enough willing industry partners, and smaller towns often have fewer companies able to absorb trainees.

Flexible learning centres: open schooling and distance education 🔗

The fourth model exists for a very practical reason: not everyone can attend a fixed institution on a fixed schedule. Working adults, people in remote areas, and those who dropped out of formal schooling still need a way back into structured skill training. This is where open and distance learning steps in.

The NIOS model of vocational learning 🔗

The National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS), established in 1989 as an autonomous body under the Ministry of Education, is the largest system of this kind in the country. Alongside its general academic programmes, NIOS offers a wide range of vocational, life enrichment, and community-oriented courses at the secondary and senior secondary level, delivered through a network of regional centres and accredited study centres across India, as outlined on the NIOS vocational education page. Because there is no strict age ceiling and attendance requirements are minimal, this model works well for learners who cannot commit to a conventional school calendar, including first-generation learners and people already working in the informal economy.

The flexibility that makes this model accessible is also its main constraint. Self-paced, low-attendance learning demands more discipline from the student, and hands-on skill components are harder to deliver consistently without a physical workshop. Open schooling therefore works best when paired with local practical centres or partner institutions that can provide the equipment-based part of the training.

Which model works best? 🔗

None of these four models is a complete answer on its own, which is why India runs all of them at once rather than choosing one. School-based training offers reach and early exposure. Independent institutions like Haryana’s offer depth and industry focus. Industry partnerships offer real-world relevance. Open schooling offers access for those the other three models cannot easily reach. A well-designed vocational education system typically layers these together: a student might get initial exposure in school, move to a dedicated institute or apprenticeship for specialised training, and later use open schooling to upgrade skills while already employed. Location, in this sense, is not a single decision but a sequence of decisions made at different stages of a learner’s life.

What do you think? If you were designing a vocational programme for your own district, would you prioritise expanding it inside existing schools, or would you push for a dedicated institution like Haryana’s model? And do you think Indian industries are currently doing enough to take on students as apprentices, or does that partnership still need stronger incentives?

References

1. https://samagra.education.gov.in/vocational.html
2. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2150233
3. https://mdu.ac.in/UpFiles/UpPdfFiles/2021/Mar/2_03-03-2021_15-54-52_Ch.%202%20An%20Analysis%20of%20Skill%20Development%20Initiatives%20in%20Haryana%20State.pdf
4. https://www.theweek.in/wire-updates/national/2025/12/18/des102-hr-vocational-education.amp.html
5. https://www.pmindia.gov.in/en/news_updates/cabinet-approves-the-national-apprenticeship-promotion-scheme/
6. https://nios.ac.in/departmentsunits/vocational-education.aspx