There is no village without a school – this phrase is decades old, but it gains particular significance whenever a village faces the threat of a school closure, a merger, or other administrative decisions. A school is not just a building where children are taught. It is a place that can be used as a polling station, for assemblies and meetings, and other important events, when it is the only venue where residents can gather. It is what keeps the community alive, especially when we are talking about rural areas.

However, there are institutions that are discussed far less frequently in this context, even though in many communities they are no less important. And in some cases, they are the only ones.

There are 474 communities in Ukraine where the highest level of education available is provided by vocational or technical education institutions. These are towns of district significance, settlements, and villages – that is, communities outside regional centres – where there are no universities or academies.

608
vocational and technical education institutions are located outside regional centres and in localities without universities – according to the Unified State Electronic Database on Education (EDEBO), May 2026

Vocational (technical and vocational) education institutions include the following types: vocational lyceums, vocational and higher vocational colleges, vocational education centres, training and production centres, training and course centres, training centres, and other institutions that provide vocational education or conduct vocational training. There are 608 vocational and technical education institutions in communities outside regional centres. The most common types of these institutions are lyceums (187), training centres (122), and colleges (87).

Source: EDEBO Register, May 2026. Classification by institution name in compliance with the Law of Ukraine “On Vocational and Technical Education”.

This accounts for more than half of all vocational education institutions in the country. And in each of these communities, this type of institution is the place where young people turn to after school, whether they remain in the community or move there.

The question is not whether such an institution is “good enough”. The question is how it positions itself and how the community perceives it. Traditionally, educational institutions are seen as service providers: they impart knowledge and award diplomas. But such an institution can be something more: a hub for partnership between education, business, and the community. A place where staff are trained to meet the specific needs of the local economy. A focal point around which prospects for young people are built.

But partnerships do not just happen spontaneously. They require two reciprocal actions. On the part of the institution, this means a willingness to go beyond the curriculum and beyond the institution’s own walls. It means not waiting for businesses to come to them, but taking the initiative to start a dialogue: what kind of staff are needed, what equipment is relevant, and where there is a shared interest. It also means openness, such as when training workshops are open not only to students but also to local entrepreneurs and adults wishing to retrain, and when teachers and employers sit down together to discuss changes to the curriculum or training plans.

From the community’s perspective, this represents a shift in attitude. Vocational education institutions are often seen as a relic of the Soviet-era vocational schools: outdated, low-prestige places for those who have not gained a place at university. But this stereotype comes at a high cost to the community. Where local authorities include the institution in their development strategy, where businesspeople sit down with the principal and teachers, new programmes, new equipment, and new reasons for young people to stay emerge.

Community development strategies are usually based on infrastructure, attracting investment, and demographics. Educational institutions tend to be treated as an add-on, a social service that needs to be maintained.

But there is another approach to strategy-building, one that starts with workforce potential. It does not begin with the question “how much does it cost to run the institution?”, but with the question “who will be working in our community in five or ten years’ time?” Which sectors will grow, which businesses might move in or stay, which professions will be in demand, and is there an institution that trains people for them? If the community answers these questions together with the institution and local businesses, the strategy ceases to be a document ‘on the shelf’ and becomes a living tool for development.

A community that knows what it will be producing in ten years’ time can ask the institution: are you training the people who will be doing this? If so, then this is no longer an expense, but an investment. If not, then this is a discussion about changing curricula, about partnerships with business, and about work-based learning. This kind of dialogue between local authorities, entrepreneurs, and the leadership of the institution is the starting point for a real strategy.

In communities where this is already happening, vocational education institutions are no longer merely managed but are becoming active agents of development. Rather than waiting for decisions from above, these institutions take the initiative themselves: they outline what they can offer, specify the resources they need from the community, and determine what they are ready to make available to all residents, not just students.

The question “why should a community invest in education?” has a simple answer, but it is rarely articulated directly. A strong vocational education and training institution means that local businesses can recruit staff without the costs of recruitment and relocation; that young people have a reason to stay or return after studying elsewhere; and that the community becomes more attractive to investors, because skilled specialists are already available, and that adults who have lost their jobs due to economic changes or the war can retrain close to home rather than having to travel to the regional centre.

This is not some abstract “developed community”. These are real people who have stayed behind. Real businesses that have opened. Real tax revenue that has been paid into the local budget.

One example of encouraging cooperation between business and vocational education is the MHP company. In May 2026, they held the ‘Partnership for the Future’ Forum, attended by 30 educational institutions, where they shared their experience of implementing dual education, combining classroom learning with on-the-job training at companies. MHP itself implements this practice and encourages the development of this model. This is a large company, but it is also a practice that local businesses in communities across different sectors of production can and do implement.

Therefore, when we talk today about the 474 communities in Ukraine where vocational schools are the institutions offering the highest level of education, this is not a ‘second choice’. It is an opportunity. And how a community makes use of this resource has a greater impact than might be apparent.

This column reflects solely the views of its author. The author is responsible for the accuracy of the information. The views of the editorial team at the Decentralisation portal may not necessarily reflect those of the author.