![Sample our Education journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5932/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Education.jpg"})
Abstract
Around the world, governments, educators and employers have expressed growing interest in German-style methods of technical and vocational education and training (TVET). In such countries, schools and firms share responsibility for providing technical and vocational education, a model often called the ‘dual system of vocational training and education.’ The dual system means that occupational training occurs at two linked sites, educational institutions and workplaces. Dual education aims at matching the demands of a dynamically changing economy with the skill profiles of those graduating from educational institutions. To a large extent, dual education systems enable young people to acquire not simply technical and occupational skill, but broadly defined competencies that serve as the foundation for rewarding careers and social esteem. Little wonder that many countries have turned with renewed interest to the dual TVET system. However, actual implementation of the dual system outside the core Germanic countries in Europe has proven to be extremely challenging. Successful examples of institutional transplantation are rare. However, in some countries, local partnerships embracing elements of dual education have formed, uniting educational institutions, government entities and firms in partnerships to upgrade TVET. This paper discusses some of the characteristic patterns of such partnerships in the U.S.
Notes
* This paper was written with the support of a grant from the Russian Science Foundation (Project No. 16-18-10425). It is part of a collaborative research project on the adoption of public-private partnerships for the reform of technical and vocational education and training in Russia. I am grateful to Israel Marques, Andrei Yakovlev, Richard Doner, Po Yang, Nancy Hoffman, Robert Schwartz, and Amy Loyd for valuable insights and information, as well as to individuals at BIBB, GIZ, Volkswagen, and other organisations whom I interviewed. I am also appreciative for useful comments by anonymous referees of this journal on an earlier draft of this paper.
1. On Russia’s effort to adopt German-based dual education methods in TVET, see Agentstvo Strategicheskikh Initsiativ (ASI) Citation2014, 2015, 2016; Remington Citation2017; Remington and Marques Citation2014.
On efforts in China to improve the effectiveness of TVET, including through the adoption of German-style dual education methods, see Benner, Zhengtao, and Tao Citation2017; Loyalka et al. Citation2015; Bünning et al. Citation2011; Barabasch, Huang, and Lawson Citation2009; Pilz and Li Citation2014; Wu Citation2009; Stewart Citation2015; Li Jun Citation2015; Cooke Citation2005; Pilz and Li Citation2014; Rauner and Zhao Citation2009; Shi Citation2012).
On studies of apprenticeship and other programmes intended to link training and employment in the United States, see below.
2. Likewise President Donald Trump declared his support for large-scale federal support for apprenticeships, issuing an executive order to this effect in June 2017. However, the increased funding was to come by diverting spending from other federal training programmes and would remove some of the authority over training programmes exercised by the Department of Labour. The initiative was to be overseen by the president’s daughter, Ivanka. At the time of writing, legislation establishing and funding the initiative has not been enacted.
3. The term ‘soft skills’ is often used but loosely defined. See Deming Citation2017 for a rigorous examination of what the term means and how soft skills interact with ‘hard skills.’
4. Dual TVET is characteristic of a number of German-speaking countries and countries with a similar heritage of apprenticeship-based training, such as Austria, Switzerland, Denmark, and Netherlands, as well as Germany. Organisational details vary somewhat across countries. Rather than generalising broadly, I will concentrate on the German system.
5. There is a sizable scholarly literature on the German apprenticeship system. Recent accounts include Anderson and Hassel Citation2013; Busemeyer and Schlicht-Schmälzle Citation2014; Deissinger Citation2015a, Citation2015b; Deissinger and Hellwig Citation2005; Ebner Citation2015; Kuhlee Citation2015; Pilz Citation2007, Citation2012; Rauner and Maclean Citation2008; Thelen Citation2004; Thelen and Busemeyer Citation2012. In addition to the secondary literature, I have consulted materials published by the German Office for International Cooperation in Vocational Education and Training (GOVET) which contain useful basic statistical information [https://wwwbibbde/govet/en/54878php]. I also rely on interviews with officials and experts in Germany at the Bundestinstitut für Berufsausbildung (BIBB), the Gesellschaft for Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), and Volkswagen company officials in Wolfsburg, Chattanooga, Kaluga and Beijing I benefited as well from a conference on ‘Work-Based Learning as a Pathway to Competence-Based Education,’ sponsored by BIBB and UNEVOC, Bonn, Germany, June 22–23, 2017
6. Both economic pressure and the influence of EU educational harmonisation are placing pressure on the German system towards greater ‘modularisation’ of training (i.e. differentiating specific skills sets and the training curricula associated with them) as well as towards more two-year apprenticeships rather than the traditional 3+ year terms. One result is to reinforce the dualism between workers with high-skill, high-wage jobs and those with lower levels of training performing lower-paide jobs. On these trends, see Thelen and Busemeyer Citation2012, Deissinger Citation2015b, and Rauner Citation2008.
7. The government’s funding is split between direct support for schools – representing about 54% of the total – and oversight and administration of the system.
8. Note that this typology is related to but differs somewhat from the matrix proposed by Busemeyer and Trampusch (Citation2012), which makes the level of government involvement one of the two axes. Here the focus is on the scope of cooperation among schools and employers in relation to the costliness of the resources (time, organisation, material) invested by the partners in the cooperation.
9. This summary is based on collaborative research with Richard Doner, Michael Rich, and Crawford Schneider.
11. Based on interviews with Volkswagen representatives, government officials, and experts in Chattanooga, Kaluga, Changchun, Beijing, and Wolfsburg.
12. Information from presentation by Ashley Carter, Chief Strategy Office of Careerwise Colorado, at the Fall 2017 Pathways to Prosperity Network Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts, October 24–25, 2017.
13. For example, the state government of South Carolina provides a tax exemption to every employer that hires an apprentice. As a result, the number of apprenticeships in the state has expanded rapidly. [http://www.apprenticeshipcarolina.com/].
14. Mares Citation2003 discusses the equivalent trade-off in firm choices over social insurance schemes.