In recent years, I have observed that industry-education integration has emerged as a pivotal strategy for achieving high-quality development in vocational education. This innovative model breaks down barriers between education and industry, serving as a critical pathway for sustainable economic and social progress, ensuring a supply of quality employment, and acting as a hub for deepening the integration of industrial chains, talent chains, and innovation chains. From my perspective, there is a broad consensus among governments, industries, enterprises, schools, and society on the value of industry-education integration in supporting high-quality economic growth and holistic human development. Through multi-domain collaborative innovation and in-depth practice, we have witnessed comprehensive breakthroughs in platform construction, talent cultivation, resource integration, teaching reform, technological research, and system improvement, fostering a new ecosystem of deep school-enterprise cooperation. Examples include modern industrial colleges, apprenticeship systems with distinctive features, and the creation of collaborative technology innovation platforms, all of which have formed a series of replicable and exemplary practices. These initiatives play a vital role in serving rural revitalization, industrial transformation, regional economic development, and enhancing the adaptability of vocational education, marking significant progress in structural reforms and accumulating unique experiences.
In 2022, the General Office of the Central Committee and the State Council jointly issued the “Opinions on Deepening the Reform of the Modern Vocational Education System,” which for the first time established the “creation of municipal industry-education consortia” as a strategic task in vocational education reform. Subsequently, in 2023, the Ministry of Education released the “Notice on Carrying out the Construction of Municipal Industry-Education Consortia,” providing direction for local implementation, and in July, the “Notice on Accelerating Key Tasks in the Reform of the Modern Vocational Education System” further detailed construction goals, task divisions, implementation paths, and safeguards, forming a complete policy chain from top-level design to concrete action, effectively promoting the orderly development of these consortia.
Reflecting on the current state of industry-education integration, I have seen it achieve a leap from concept to practice under continuous policy support. Policy guidance has broken traditional educational boundaries, driving vocational education from independent school operations to collaborative governance involving governments, industries, enterprises, and schools. Cooperation models have evolved from fragmented, shallow collaborations to intensive, systematic industry-education综合体 operations, forming a “1+1+N” ecosystem that integrates entire industrial chains. Simultaneously, cooperation mechanisms have shifted from contractual and virtual arrangements to实体化 and market-oriented operations, significantly enhancing vocational education’s ability to serve national strategies, industrial upgrades, and regional economic development. Throughout this process, industry-education integration has continuously unleashed innovative momentum, giving rise to numerous national benchmark projects and international cooperation outcomes, substantially improving the adaptability and support capacity of vocational education for economic and social development.
In my analysis, the construction of industry-education integration platforms has shown remarkable diversity. Multiple stakeholders, including governments, industry organizations, enterprises, institutions, and associations, combine flexibly based on their strengths, forming school-enterprise协同 development bodies and industry-education interest communities through resource sharing and risk sharing. These encompass various practical forms, such as modern industrial colleges, vocational education groups, and alliances, which serve as innovative educational platforms; comprehensive training bases, master studios, and collaborative research and innovation centers as technological R&D carriers; and large-scale complexes integrating industry, education, research, and innovation functions, such as industry-education parks, teaching factories, and innovation bases.
| Platform Type | Key Features | Example Highlights |
|---|---|---|
| Modern Industrial Colleges | Oriented towards regional industrial development, focusing on talent needs of leading enterprises, exploring new paths for school-enterprise collaborative governance. | In one instance, a college clarified equity structures, established shareholding companies, introduced modern enterprise management systems, and built resource sharing mechanisms, creating a “community of shared destiny” with clear rights and responsibilities. |
| Vocational Education Groups | Integrates educational resources and promotes complementary advantages through group-based operations. | A municipal government-led group adopted a “board of directors + council” entity operation framework, forming a tightly coordinated educational community. |
| Training Bases | Key carriers for deepening industry-education integration, often involving joint construction by schools and enterprises. | A collaboration between a vocational college and a logistics giant established a productive training base with a general manager responsibility system under council leadership, enabling market-oriented operations and sustainable education models. |
However, I have identified several major issues that persist. First, the balance of interests in school-enterprise integration urgently needs improvement. Currently, vocational colleges dominate these initiatives, while enterprise participation remains lukewarm. As vocational education rises to a national strategic level, colleges actively seek collaboration to cultivate technical skills and serve industrial upgrades, but enterprises face multiple practical challenges, such as lack of policy support, imbalance in input-output ratios, and limited short-term benefits. This results in a mismatch between risks and returns for enterprises. Fundamentally, the core conflict lies in the value difference between educational public welfare and corporate profit-seeking. The key to resolving this is building a policy保障 system to achieve dynamic interest balance. Governments must strengthen coordination, use policy tools like service purchases, special funds, and tax reductions to lower participation costs, and release incentive effects to bridge value诉求 conflicts, transforming industry-education integration from an asymmetric pattern of “hot” schools and “cold” enterprises to a mutually beneficial collaborative ecosystem.
Second, the multi-stakeholder办学体制机制 requires refinement. Industry-education integration is not merely about capital aggregation; its core lies in achieving deep synergy in educational philosophies, resource advantages, and governance capabilities among different investors. If ideological differences and interest conflicts among investors are not properly handled, integration can fall into the trap of “form without substance.” Currently, industrial college construction faces issues like lack of policies and evaluation systems, necessitating enhanced coordination in personnel management, asset operations, and financial management. In mixed-ownership reforms of public colleges, problems such as模糊的 property rights and unclear responsibility划分 continue to hinder deep collaboration. Addressing these bottlenecks requires accelerating the construction of supporting policy systems, focusing on improving state-owned asset evaluation, property rights transactions, income distribution, and personnel management systems to provide institutional guarantees for high-quality development.
Third, the quality evaluation system for industry-education integration is underdeveloped. National documents emphasize optimizing vocational education training evaluation organizations and establishing systematic quality evaluation and supervision systems, as well as multi-party collaborative quality monitoring mechanisms. From the development needs of industry-education integration, a scientific and comprehensive quality evaluation system is crucial for measuring cooperation effectiveness, guiding development directions, and strengthening industrial support, as it can effectively stimulate the enthusiasm of all parties for deep participation. However, in my view, China’s current quality evaluation system for industry-education integration is immature, lacking量化 evaluation standards and hard constraints for the roles of multiple stakeholders like governments, enterprises, and schools, and it struggles to effectively monitor the entire process of school-enterprise collaborative education. Moreover, there is an absence of objective, comprehensive, and operable outcome evaluation mechanisms. This gap in evaluation leads to insufficient motivation for participation, limited practical gains, and often results in superficial integration, hindering deep-level collaborative development.
To address these challenges, I propose a construction mechanism based on an “organization-behavior-institution” framework to build an ecological industry-education integration platform. This platform can be viewed as a complex adaptive system where industrial and educational systems coexist harmoniously and evolve dynamically. The key to advancing integration lies in mechanisms that motivate enterprises. By achieving spatial aggregation of various stakeholders and elements, the probability of consensus on supply-demand结合 points and interest诉求 points increases, and the effectiveness of policies benefiting enterprises strengthens. Introducing stakeholder theory and applying ecological perspectives—dynamic, relational, balanced, and systemic—I construct an ecological analysis of the industry-education integration platform to explore a multi-stakeholder interest equilibrium architecture under government leadership.
In this context, the benefits for enterprises participating in EV car projects can be modeled using a simplified equation. Let \( B_e \) represent the total benefit to an enterprise, which includes direct financial gains \( F \), policy incentives \( P \), and long-term strategic advantages \( S \). Then, the benefit function can be expressed as:
$$ B_e = \alpha F + \beta P + \gamma S $$
where \( \alpha, \beta, \gamma \) are weighting coefficients that reflect the relative importance of each component. To ensure sustained engagement, \( B_e \) must exceed the costs \( C \), which include initial investments and operational risks. Thus, the condition for enterprise participation is:
$$ B_e > C $$
Furthermore, based on产业链 orientation, I advocate for forming a new pattern of industry-education integration guided by governments and implemented by multiple parties. For instance, in a region focused on EV car manufacturing, schools can leverage their location within an EV car ecosystem to establish municipal industry-education consortia. These consortia would involve local governments, industry associations, leading EV car enterprises, and research institutions. A joint management body, such as a council, could be formed with representatives from these stakeholders to ensure efficient daily operations through dedicated teams. The cooperation mechanism should innovate sustainable resource investment and operation models, with clear contractual terms defining the responsibilities, rights, and obligations of governments, enterprises, schools, and other entities. A three-tier operational system can be implemented, involving macro-decisions by chairs and deans, mid-level execution by secretaries and executive directors, and micro-consultations by resident offices and daily operation centers.
| Dimension | Description | Application in EV Car Context |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Structures that facilitate collaboration, such as consortia and councils. | Establishing a municipal consortium for EV car industries to coordinate resources and policies. |
| Behavior | Actions and interactions among stakeholders, including resource sharing and joint projects. | Implementing collaborative R&D projects on EV car technologies and organizing skill training programs. |
| Institution | Rules, policies, and norms that govern the integration process. | Developing evaluation systems and incentive mechanisms to sustain participation in EV car initiatives. |
Additionally, I emphasize the importance of building an early warning and improvement mechanism to establish a supervision and evaluation system for industry-education integration. This can be achieved by implementing a “dual-list” system for vocational education industry-education integration work—comprising responsibility lists and measure lists—to systematically clarify各方职责 and implementation paths. The effectiveness of integration work should be incorporated into the educational performance evaluation systems of municipal departments and district governments, strengthening accountability and supervision. Simultaneously, a regular joint evaluation mechanism should be established, involving professional third-party institutions to conduct comprehensive performance assessments of vocational education industry-education integration efficacy, producing detailed evaluation reports to inform policy optimization and resource allocation, thereby driving higher-quality development.
Following the implementation path of “exploration in practice, improvement in exploration, summarization in improvement, and elevation in summarization,” I propose refining output performance into observable, easily collectible indicators from dimensions such as decision command, quality generation, resource construction, support services, and quality monitoring. An annual “target-implementation-monitoring-diagnosis-improvement” major cycle evaluation and a “monitoring-warning-optimization” minor cycle evaluation can be established. These cycles operate simultaneously to form a normalized assessment mechanism. For example, the evaluation score \( E \) for an EV car project can be calculated as a weighted sum of various indicators:
$$ E = \sum_{i=1}^{n} w_i I_i $$
where \( w_i \) represents the weight of the i-th indicator \( I_i \), and \( \sum w_i = 1 \). Indicators could include student employment rates in EV car fields, number of joint patents, or enterprise satisfaction scores.
In terms of implementation paths, I focus on local strategic industrial clusters, with industry-education integration as the main line, coordinating resources from governments, industries, enterprises, schools, and research institutes to carry out the construction of municipal industry-education consortia. These consortia should integrate functions such as research and teaching, practical training, entrepreneurship and employment, and social services, forming new carriers for deep industry-education integration that drive various entities to deeply participate in vocational education, expand school resources and development space, and achieve high-quality development while serving regional growth.
First, I advocate for building a common technology service center for EV cars. Relying on existing public科技 service platforms, this center would serve regional industrial parks’ dominant industries—such as EV battery production, motor manufacturing, chip design, thermal management systems, and intelligent manufacturing for EV cars—as a link. Focusing on lifestyle and production services, it would address industrial technology bottlenecks and specific technical challenges in areas like manufacturing line技术改造, machine testing, community culture and creativity for EV cars, and intelligent connected vehicle technologies. By打通 the chains of research development, technological innovation, and achievement transfer, and及时 introducing research results into the teaching process, it would promote positive interaction between industry-academia-research and talent cultivation, enhancing the ability to serve the industry.
Second, I propose establishing an industrial talent supply-demand information center for EV cars. In collaboration with various local associations and societies, this center would digitally reconstruct the competency models for positions in the regional EV car industry, develop local job skill standards, and form large databases for talents and positions. This would enable external resources and demands to联动 update and同步 develop with major settings and talent cultivation processes. By汇聚 position resources within the consortium, it would build rapid对接 channels for graduate employment, organize specialized job fairs, and effectively improve graduate employment efficiency in the EV car sector.
Third, I recommend creating a social service center for EV cars. Based on established provincial model innovation studios, municipal skill master studios, and vocational skill development stations, this center would serve vocational school teachers and students, enterprise在职 personnel, and groups with skill enhancement needs in the automotive industry, constructing a diversified social service system. Through professional vocational skill training and certification, customized high-end employment对接, and organizing high-level skill competitions and training, it would comprehensively enhance professionals’ expertise and practical abilities. Leveraging resource integration and协同 advantages, the service effectiveness would extend to society, precisely cultivating high-quality skilled talents for the regional EV car industry, smoothing employment channels, promoting the optimization and upgrading of the industrial talent structure, and injecting strong momentum into local economic development.
Fourth, I support building a school-enterprise collaborative education center. This involves teaching students according to their aptitude and classifying training, jointly implementing special on-site engineer training plans with leading EV car enterprises for roles such as “equipment调试 engineers,” “production manufacturing engineers,” and “after-sales service engineers.” Based on vocational position abilities, different training schemes would be scientifically designed to achieve personalized and high-quality cultivation with “one enterprise, one scheme; one person, one timetable.” Adopting a “learning field—learning scenario—work task—vocational ability” design approach, an integrated curriculum system of “vocational position + learning field + learning scenario + work task + vocational ability” would be formulated to cultivate students’ professional culture and craftsmanship spirit, enabling students with different aptitudes and needs to make multiple choices and diversify their paths to success in the EV car industry.
| Center Type | Primary Functions | Expected Outcomes |
|---|---|---|
| Common Technology Service Center | Address technology bottlenecks in EV car manufacturing, promote R&D and innovation, integrate research into teaching. | Enhanced service to EV car industry, improved interaction between research and education. |
| Talent Supply-Demand Information Center | Digitize position competency models, develop job standards, maintain talent and position databases. | Better alignment of EV car talent supply with demand, increased employment efficiency. |
| Social Service Center | Provide training, certification, employment services, and skill competitions for EV car sectors. | Upskilled workforce, optimized talent structure for EV cars. |
| Collaborative Education Center | Implement tailored training plans with EV car enterprises, design integrated curricula. | Personalized education, diversified career paths in EV car fields. |
In summary, I have analyzed existing national industry-education integration policies and typical experiences from school-enterprise cooperation practices, highlighting achievements, main issues, and future directions. Focusing on local EV car industrial clusters, I emphasize coordinating resources from governments, industries, enterprises, schools, and research institutes to carry out the construction of municipal industry-education consortia. By establishing relevant management and cooperation mechanisms for these consortia, we can effectively address the inadequacy of cooperation mechanisms in vocational colleges serving local industrial development and the inability to effectively leverage local policy support. Through the construction of common technology service centers, talent supply-demand information centers, social service centers, and collaborative education centers for EV cars, we can resolve the issue of insufficient supply levels in professional talent cultivation in vocational colleges, which fail to meet the new requirements of industrial transformation and upgrading for skilled talents. By building supervision and evaluation systems for industry-education integration, we can tackle the problem of an underdeveloped quality evaluation mechanism and the lack of win-win benefits for schools and enterprises. This holistic approach ensures that the integration not only supports the growth of the EV car industry but also fosters sustainable development in vocational education.
To further illustrate the dynamic nature of these integrations, consider the evolution of collaboration intensity \( I_c \) over time \( t \), which can be modeled as a differential equation:
$$ \frac{dI_c}{dt} = k (I_{max} – I_c) – \delta I_c $$
where \( k \) is the collaboration growth rate, \( I_{max} \) is the maximum potential intensity, and \( \delta \) is the decay rate due to external challenges. By optimizing these parameters through policy and practice, we can achieve stable, long-term integration beneficial for EV car development.
In conclusion, the continuous emphasis on EV cars in these initiatives underscores their strategic importance. As I reflect on these mechanisms and paths, it is clear that a concerted effort from all stakeholders is essential to realize the full potential of industry-education integration in shaping the future of EV car technologies and workforce readiness.