Search results

To provide information and insight into the potential of reforms in full‐time vocational education and training (VET) (practice firms in vocational colleges) in contrast with apprenticeships against the background of training market frictions in Germany.

Structural information on the German VET system; empirical study (2006) within a research project to illustrate the didactical and social benefits of practice firms.

Underlines that vocational colleges and practice firms within them are part of a “preparatory” system which predominantly serves further education needs and the follow‐up intention to undertake an apprenticeship; confirms preceding research which put them in line with the “typical” full‐time VET system.

Limitations are due to the focus on one type of full‐time VET and the specific conditions in the federal state of Baden‐Württemberg.

Provides useful information to understand the nature of VET in a given country; insight into the limitations of full‐time VET can help teachers to rethink co‐operation with companies in general.

Useful contribution to rethinking VET policy and to understanding limitations in the wake of an implementation of new forms of vocational learning against the background of culturally‐rooted tradtions.

This paper proposes to investigate the modernisation of the German Dual System for apprenticeships.

The paper looks at the history of the development of the Dual System and looks at the challenges it faces today.

The paper finds that Germany, with its long‐standing tradition of dual apprenticeships and the reputation of maintaining its practices rather than changing them, has joined the vocational education and training reform agenda. It also finds that reforms seem inevitable in the face of a partial failure of the traditional mechanisms operating within the existing apprenticeship system.

This paper is useful in highlighting the challenges faced by a traditional apprenticeship system.

One of the traits which distinguish the German dual system of vocational education and training (VET) from most training systems in the world is the voluntary contribution of companies towards it, in both practical and financial terms. Obviously, the craft sector is a training segment within the dual system where the importance of practical experience is more strongly emphasised than the systematic approach underlying all modern training schemes. However, the overall supply of training placements in the German system decreased during the 1990s. Although the crafts have fared comparatively well, this tendency is now starting to also affect the sector. Being a sector with seemingly less attractive job prospects in small businesses and a comparatively low net cost per apprenticeship, the crafts face problems in terms of social selection as well as challenges with respect to the modernisation of training contents and instruction methods. The crafts are a sector with predominantly male participation and mainly absorb school leavers with lower secondary school qualifications. In this context, one of the questions for the Dual System and its uniform training practices might be whether the rapidly expanding services sector, with similar “small‐business” features, will be able or willing to follow the “training philosophy” that originated in the craft sector – and which is still seen as the “backbone” of the German Dual System of training.

The purpose of this paper is to compare stakeholders’ roles in Germany and Switzerland when it comes to promoting innovation in the dual apprenticeship model. In both countries, the relevant stakeholders who represent the various occupations and, in a more narrow sense, the social partners, actively shape vocational education and training (VET) reforms. They represent the area of public educational policy, besides governments, political parties and the public, who, in both countries, appreciate the decisive role of apprenticeships for youth education, employment and social stability. Thus, the broad consensus of the relevant stakeholders is crucial in order to keep apprenticeship systems alive. Both countries face challenges related to academisation, which means, that the Gymnasium (high school) and higher education now are even more the first option for parents than in former times. On several levels German and Swiss policy makers try to strengthen VET paying tribute to and trying to cope with these developments.

The paper is situated in the field of comparative VET research. Based on policy documents and findings from research the paper analyses the discourse and perspectives related to VET reforms. The authors deliberately focus on two countries, Germany and Switzerland, which share a great deal of common features in relation to VET, nevertheless developed different measures in order to cope with the pressure of increasing the ratio of students in higher education. The comparative paper looks at the topical reform discourse and taken measures and the specific culture of apprenticeships in the two countries by focusing on those stakeholders, which, besides governments, are crucially involved in the system. The paper draws its insights from the VET policy debate and from both national policy documents and national and international expert publications in the field of VET. A strong focus is given to the emerging new environment of the VET system. Methodologically, the paper draws from an institutional view on VET, which is being discussed broadly in comparative research, since VET systems with a “dual system”, such as the two discussed here, may be categorized as “state-steered market models”, “occupation-based qualifications styles”, “collective skill formation systems” or specific realizations of “transition systems”. All these categories refer to the observation that in these societies it is not the state alone, who defines the structure of the respective VET system, but non-state stakeholders are capable of influencing VET policy and VET reform in a substantial and visible way.

In both countries, Germany and Switzerland, the importance and value of VET is based on an overall consensus, shared by all relevant actors. The basis of this consensus is that the dual system so far successfully opened and should continue to open career paths in industry. Apprenticeships undoubtedly are cornerstones of economic welfare in these countries and can be associated with low youth unemployment rates. A supplementary aspect in the last years however is the political will that VET should also have some kind of link with higher education. Despite some interesting reform measures ambivalences cannot be ignored: against what could be called “academic fallacy” the importance of a highly qualified workforce, trained in non-academic fields, and the future of this kind of skill formation have become major topics and concerns in both societies.

This paper is comparing two similar cases, Switzerland and Germany, in VET in order to profile reform alternatives. Furthermore the actors beyond state are highlighted as important element for reform in VET education.

Examines the dual system of vocational education and training in Germany and points out that the system is more than just an alternative training arrangement. Draws on the five major features which underlie the principle of the dual system (dualism of learning venues, legalism and public responsibility for vocational training, the principle of self‐government, private commitment to training and the vocational principle) and assesses training which goes beyond the scope of individual companies as well as specific job requirements. Compares these specific features with training in Britain. Concludes that the German system of training provision may solve qualification problems, but is unlikely to provide a basis for emulation elsewhere in Europe.

The aim of this paper is to re‐examine the unique political economy of Germany's dual apprenticeship training model and its underlying philosophy of corporatist governance. It responds to recent arguments suggesting that Germany's collectivist skill regime is under threat, increasingly giving way to the introduction of “segmentalism”.

The paper reviews the political roots of a training system, which is moulded and shaped by corporatist interventions and neocorporatist compromises. It applies “public choice” theory to different interest groups in Germany's training market. The focus is on the German apprenticeship system as a social and political institution. The paper is positioned in the tradition of inductive enquiry, which draws on an interpretive framework and is informed by reference to a cross‐section of the extant literature in several social science disciplines.

The German training system is the product of a wider post‐war consensus, yet continues to face social inequality concerns, which culminate in significant economic and societal costs. Despite modernisation attempts, the German apprenticeship is the outcome of a complicated political process, linked to its historical origins, which allows for a considerable degree of self‐interest alongside its corporatist roots and values. Amongst Germany's social partners, heterogeneous self‐interests and corporatism can co‐exist, thus identifying an alternative model to collectivism and segmentalism.

The paper rejects recent suggestions that the German system moves towards a model of “segmentalism”. Instead, it interprets the German system as an example for a specific socio‐political constellation where significant self‐interests and corporatist rules can co‐exist. Against this background, it demonstrates that continuing demands to copy the German apprenticeship model – if thought desirable – are unlikely to be successful unless this tangled web of political processes and interests is fully understood.

Examines the experiences of Germany and Sweden in their attempts to develop core skills and key competencies among trainees and young employees. Particular attention is devoted to vocational training as a promising school‐to‐work transition process, which stimulates and supports the development of core skills. Some case study material (Germany) and relevant policy responses (Sweden) have also been used to go beyond mere theoretical considerations and to provide some practical help and guidance when it comes to defining, implementing, assessing and administering the concepts of core skills and key competencies. In particular, the paper highlights the importance of employer enthusiasm in the development and delivery of core skills.