Vocational Education and Training in Germany: the Dual System and Stage Training

Vocational education and training in Germany: the dual system and stage training

Dr Antje Cockrill

Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference

(September 11-14 1997: University of York)

Centre for Advanced Studies School of Education

in the Social SciencesUniversity of Wales Cardiff

University of Wales Cardiff21 Senghennydd Road

33 Corbett RoadCardiff CF2 4YB

Cardiff CF1 3EB

E-mail address:

Telephone no.:01222 874945 ext. 6296

Abstract:

This paper explores the dual system of vocational education and training (VET) in Germany, and its variant, stage training. The first term refers to the combination of vocational education in schools and in-company training which characterises German vocational training. Stage training is a variant of this system, and one type of it is used in the construction industry. It entails a combination of education in a vocational school, in-company training and training in an inter-company training centre. Although widely held in high regard, German VET faces a range of controversial issues which will also be discussed.

This paper is based on a comparative study of three sectors, the construction, engineering and care sectors in two German and one British region. The fieldwork consisted of interviews with employers, unions, sectoral umbrella organisations and training providers, conducted in the period 1996-1997.

Key terms: Vocational education and training; Post-sixteen education and training; German education and training system.

1. Introduction

Vocational education and training in Germany has been held in high esteem both at home and abroad, and, here in Britain, has often been looked at as a possible model for improving economic performance and workforce skill profiles. Our research has shown that there is still much support for the so-called dual system amongst the 'social partners' (trade unions, employers and the government) although we found that there is also an increasing amount of criticism about a number of weaknesses in this system. Since pre-and post-compulsory education and training are inextricably linked in Germany, it is necessary to briefly present the main options for secondary education that German young people face.

The German school system is essentially selective from the age of 10 (or 12) onwards. Most children enter secondary education at roughly 10 years of age, and the type of school the child will attend for the remaining years of his or her school career is decided jointly by parents and teachers. Essentially, there are four options of mainstream secondary education in Germany.

The first option is the Gymnasium, which holds the highest social prestige and is meant to take in the most academically able students, although the ability range has widened considerably in the last decade. Its final exam, the Abitur, is the entry qualification for higher education. This exam is usually taken with 19 years of age.

The second type of secondary school, the Realschule, is geared at the 'middle range' of ability and offers a mixture of academic and more vocational subjects. This type of education includes mandatory work experience placements. Students leaving the Realschule either attempt to obtain and apprenticeship place, or they enter a full time vocational school. If they have achieved high marks, they have also the option to continue in a Gymnasium or its equivalent to gain university entry qualifications.

The third option is the Hauptschule. Today this type of school caters for lower ability students. Its curriculum provides basic education until the age of 15 or 16 (depending on the state). Originally the Hauptschule was the most common type of secondary school and took in children across the ability range. It provided the basic education required for those who wanted to continue into the crafts or trades. However, in the last two decades, the Hauptschule has become a vessel for all of those students who, for a variety of reasons (very low ability, learning difficulties, social/behavioral difficulties, immigrants with insufficient language knowledge or with cultural adaptation problems), are unable to get into one of the other school forms (Cantor, 1989, p.97). Most Hauptschule leavers aim to obtain apprenticeship placements, but many do not stand much of a chance against competition from better qualified school leavers from other school forms, and are channeled either into government schemes or full time vocational schools.

Some states have also introduced comprehensive schools (Gesamtschule) in the 70s. Some of these comprehensive schools are streamed by ability, but others teach all students together until the age of 15 or 16 (depending on the state). More often than not, these schools are not truly comprehensive because they are top-creamed by nearby Gymnsasiums. Gesamtschulen also offer the Abitur exam. Where there is a choice between other school forms and a Gesamtschule, the intake tends to encompass students of low and medium ability, the latter often being children of ambitious parents aiming at the Abitur exam, knowing that their child would not succeed in a Gymnasium.

It is evident from this brief introduction to German secondary schooling that parents have to put considerable thought into secondary school choice. Moves between school forms are possible and do occur, but usually only in circumstances where there is a clear mismatch between a child’s' ability and the type of school it attends. But even if a wrong choice has been accepted, changing school is not an easy option because of differences in the curriculum and in social status. Consequently, most children remain in the school form that was chosen for them at age 10 or 12, and thus career paths are determined at an early age in Germany (von Brachel, 1994, p. 35).

2. Vocational education and training in Germany

The most well known element of German vocational education and training is the dual system. However, this type of training is only one of several routes to a vocational qualification. There are three fundamentally different ways how to obtain a vocational qualification in Germany. Firstly, there is the dual system. Secondly, young people can choose one of several types of full-time vocational schools. Thirdly, there is the so-called Stufenausbildung, which is unique to the construction industry. This paper will only regard the dual system and the Stufenausbildung.

2.1 The dual system

The dual system receives its name from the combination of employer-based and school-based training, which is typical of the traditional apprenticeship pattern in Germany.

Young people seeking an apprenticeship apply to employers and enter an apprenticeship agreement with the employer. These apprenticeships last usually between 3 and 3 ½ years. Apprentices receive either three days a week work-based training and attend an occupation specific vocational school (Berufsschule) for the remaining days, or their work based training is full time with intermittent 'blocks' of school based training. The school curriculum is not only vocational but also attempts to provide some measure of general education including the teaching of English.

Both an apprentice and his employer are subject to a training contract, which has to be registered with the appropriate chamber. The chamber[1] also supervises the training period and can act as a negotiator when difficulties arise. There are over 370 recognised training occupations in Germany. These nationally recognised apprenticeships are based on a curriculum and exams are determined by the training regulations (Ausbildungsordnungen) issued by the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs. Successful completion of an apprenticeship leads to skilled worker (Facharbeiter) status, or, in the crafts, to journeyman (Gesellen) status.

Apprentices receive a training allowance and this as well as all other training costs connected with the work-based element of an apprenticeship have to be borne by the employer. There are no government subsidies, although the Länder carry the cost of the school-based training elements. The traditional pattern of training provision in Germany was to train more apprentices than were actually needed by individual firms but increasing concern about training costs has led to cutbacks in the number of training places on offer.

There is no obligation to provide training, and although much of the training is standardised and regulated, the quality of training provision varies considerably - even concerning training for the same occupation or trade. Training conditions are different between larger and smaller firms, although enterprises offering training are required to employ a specially qualified trainer. Consequently, young people compete fiercely for those apprenticeships which are universally perceived as attractive. These tend to be training places in white collar professions such as banking and finance or with larger multi-national companies. Another effect of this competition is that employers offering ‘attractive’ apprenticeships can choose amongst well qualified applicants, whereas employers in industries perceived to be less attractive such as construction or engineering have difficulties in obtaining candidates of the calibre required.

2.2 Stufenausbildung (Stage training)

In the construction industry, a slightly different type of training has evolved. It takes account of two specific features of the construction industry: it provides shortened apprenticeships for young people with low motivation and/or ability; and it caters for an industry characterised by a large number of small and medium sized firms. In contrast to training in the dual system, its training elements are not only based in the work place and the vocational school but there is also training in an intercompany training centre. The training consists of three components: training in the firm, education in the vocational school and training in an off-site inter-company training centre. The full apprenticeship leading to skilled worker status in a specific building trade[2] takes three years, but after the second year, stage 1 of the apprenticeship is completed with an exam either qualifying for general building worker status or this exam permits entry into the last year of the full apprenticeship.

In the first year of their apprenticeship, trainees spend most of their time in off-site training, namely 20 weeks in the Berufsschule and 20 weeks in the inter-company training centre. Only 12 weeks training are based in the firm. Both the training in the vocational school and in the inter-company training centre is focused on a general introduction to all building trades. In our research we found that this first year received a number of criticisms by employers, two of which were quite prominent. One complaint was that there was too little time in the firm to permit either the trainee to get to know the firm as a working environment, or for the company to decide whether the apprentice fitted into the company team. The second major complaint was that this multi-skilled approach wasted time and was unnecessary. This complaint was more pronounced among the more specialised craft firms, e.g. a specilised stucco work firm could not see the need for their apprentices to learn how to build a canal or to pave a road.

In the second year, the balance between the training elements shifts and the trainee spends 29 weeks in the firm, 13 in the training centre and 10 in the vocational school. In the final year after the first exam, most of the time is spent in the firm, and only 10 and 4 weeks are based in the vocational school and the training centre respectively (Zentralverband des Deutschen Baugewerbes, n.y., n.p.)

All our respondents agreed that the inter-company training centre performed an important role and permitted training which could not be provided by smaller firms themselves. The school-based element was viewed much more critically, this will be expanded below.

(SHOW VIDEO HERE)

Another distinctive feature of the Stufenausbildung is its funding. Training in the construction sector is funded via a training levy, which all firms in the sector have to pay, regardless of whether or not they are training themselves. These funds are used to pay trainees’ allowances during most of the time they do not spend in the firm, and to fund the training centres.[3]

3. Current issues

The dual system still commands a tremendous amount of respect and acceptance in Germany, and there is consensus amongst the ‘social partners’ that systematic vocational training is desirable and for the public good. This has to be emphasised: although there were a number of complaints and several quite serious issues were raised, the underlying feeling is that of acceptance and reliance on a system that has worked well in the past and is expected to do the same in the future. Several of our respondents said that they ‘could not think of anything better’ which sums up many of the responses we received. In principle both employers and trade unionists accept and expect that each young person should have access to high quality vocational training, and that training profiles should be continuously modernised and upgraded (see also Streeck et al, 1987, p.3). However, there is also agreement that some problem areas and weaknesses within the dual system need to be addressed if it is to function equally well in the future as it has in the past. The main issues of discussion are presently a concern about constantly increasing training costs, the desirability and/or necessity of differentiation within the dual system, a perceived lack of flexibility in vocational training generally and the role of vocational schools.

3.1 Costs

One of the main areas of concern in both in the policy discussions and the literature as well as in our research is the issue of funding vocational education in Germany. Although unions and employers agree that this is a problem area, their perception of what causes the problem and how it could be solved differ substantially. Whereas trade unionists complain that there is an insufficient number of training places made available by employers - who, as they claim, benefit from the labour of apprentices ( particularly of third year apprentices who are able to do most jobs in their trade) - employer organisations perceive the increasing training costs, especially rises in training allowances as a growing burden that many feel unable to bear to the same extent as they used to do in the past. This was reflected in our research: several employers had either stopped taking on apprentices or only took on a much smaller number than before. This debate about the costs of training provision has been going on for about a decade, without having resulted in major policy changes.

Presently, the union position is to suggest a training levy as in the construction sector for all industries, based on the assumption that such a levy would increase the number of training places, raise training quality, balance training opportunities in less economically favoured regions, and even out the costs of training and continuing training. (IG Metall Abteilung Berufsbildung, ed., 1994, pp. 30-39).

This idea of a general training levy is viewed with suspicion by employers. They fear it would result in more government control, a reduction of the number of training places, a loss of training quality, and possibly to ‘double paying’ by some firms as well as being an additional burden on the economy (Kuratorium der Deutschen Wirtschaft für Berufsbildung, 1995, p.14.). At present there is a stalemate between employers and unions which is clearly a major obstacle in the further development of the provision of education and training.

3.2 Differentiation

Although historically there have been few problems with youth unemployment and difficulties with the transition processes between training and work, there is a now a group of 10-14% of young people in each age cohort who effectively drop out of the system and do not continue in any kind of education or training after leaving school. The ‘social partners’ - government, employer organisations and trade unions - recognise that these young people are not only often unemployed but also perceived as unemployable, unable to compete in an increasingly competitive labour market. Therefore a number of changes have been suggested to the dual system to cater for the needs of this particular group of young people.

Employer organisations propose to introduce shortened two year apprenticeships which would accommodate low motivation and/or ability levels. This model can already be found in the construction industry, and in some of the less regulated sectors such as care, where lower level, semi-skilled ‘assistant’ qualifications can be obtained after two years of training rather than the usual three year duration. However, the union position could not differ more starkly: they maintain that these young people need more training, not less, and suggest extension of the ‘normal’ apprenticeship and additional training when necessary. On this issue, as in the issue of cost, there is no consensus in sight. Employers are concerned about the cost implications of extended apprenticeships and additional training, and also fear that these young people would not have sufficient motivation to complete longer apprenticeships. However, the unions fear that shortened apprenticeships would result in a set of low status occupations outside of the tariff structure, with few chances of career development and promotion.