Given the problems faced by many young people during the transition from school into initial vocational education and training (IVET), how to increase the accessibility of the IVET system is a matter for debate. In a round of the Federal Institute for Vocational Education and Training (BIBB) "Vocational Training Experts Monitor" survey at the end of 2010, around 500 experts commented on various reform proposals. Their ratings are presented in this article.
These indicate that the only policy concepts likely to command a consensus in Germany are those which leave the existing rules on access to IVET intact. Reforms which restrict the autonomy of businesses' decision-making in the recruitment of apprentices therefore have little or no chance of implementation. In contrast, there is broad approval for innovations in the transition system and more intensive support measures for companies and young people.
When school leavers complete the lower secondary phase of general education, they are normally between 16 and 17 years of age. For comparison, the average age at which those without a university entrance qualification commence IVET is 19.2 years. Thus, it takes many school-leavers interested in IVET a year or longer to be able to start a fully-qualifying vocational training programme. A proportion of them respond to these transition problems with despondency and forgo training altogether.
Out of concern for these young people and with an eye to the impending shortage of skilled workers, a current topic of debate is how the access mechanisms can be reformed to make the integration of young people into the IVET system - sociologists talk about "inclusion" - more efficient. The particular challenge resides in the fact that obtaining a placement in the dual system - unlike entrance to higher education, for example, - represents a form of "market inclusion": it occurs largely via the matching of supply and demand. If the demand from companies for apprentices is distinctly lower than the number of applicants - as was the case once again in 2010 - many young people remain excluded from the dual system.
The various proposed solutions to this problem that are currently under discussion can be summarised in terms of three fundamental strategies:
- The first strategy is geared towards watering down or relativising the principle of market-driven inclusion. This means limiting the autonomy of companies to decide whether and to whom they provide initial vocational training. The aim of imposing certain conditions on companies is to increase the overall volume of IVET that companies provide and to eliminate specific barriers to access for disadvantaged young people (e.g. young migrants).
- The second strategy does not interfere with market-driven inclusion but aims to complement it with a rule-driven inclusion mechanism ("inclusion by rule"). In concrete terms, this means that prospective trainees who meet certain admission criteria - e.g. hold a school-leaving certificate, meet the criterion of "apprenticeship-entry maturity" or, in the most basic scenario, have simply left school - obtain, without exception, an offer of training leading to a vocational qualification. This requires the use of non-company-based forms of IVET and the development of new IVET models.
- The third strategy does not set out to seek new forms of inclusion but to stimulate the economy's demand for apprentices while retaining market-driven access. To achieve this, the "supply" must be made more attractive to companies, and their costs and risks of providing IVET must be lowered. This can be done by taking steps to upgrade the entry-level qualifications of applicants or the targeting of the recruitment process, or alternatively, by providing additional support to companies who employ disadvantaged young people.
The proposals envisage improving young people's level of qualification on entry by implementing reforms in the transition system or the general education system, more targeted recruitment e.g. through better vocational orientation, training-entry mentors and monitoring systems.
There is no unanimity, and in some respects only very muted agreement, regarding proposals to relativise the principle of inclusion by market (strategy 1) or to supplement it with the principle of selection by rule (strategy 2). In other words, any idea of compelling firms to operate anonymised application procedures or quota systems for the benefit of particular groups of applicants gain a non-committal response from almost all sub-groups of experts. Proposals to smooth the way for guaranteed access to IVET for young people with lengthened apprenticeship periods, individual qualification offers, or non-company-based forms of IVET gain more frequent approval overall but are unlikely to command a majority in all groups.
This is principally because the majority of experts from industry (i.e. employers, chamber representatives) reject these ideas, particularly the proposal of equating the lower secondary school leaving certificate with "apprenticeship-entry maturity". In contrast, trade unionists, who understand their role as the representatives of young people's interests, generally welcome all these proposals. Their views only coincide with those of industry representatives in rejecting any modularised pathway to a vocational qualification and any legal obligation upon companies to allocate a certain quota of their apprenticeship places to migrants.
The strong position of employers in political decision-finding might be one of the reasons that experts rarely see any likelihood of implementation of proposals geared towards modification of the existing inclusion mechanisms. The innovation most frequently expected is the institutional recognition of the lower secondary school leaving certificate as a certificate of apprenticeship-entry maturity (in the same way as the Abitur certifies readiness for entry to higher education), although only a quarter of all experts believe that it will take place by 2015.
The conclusions of the Vocational Training Experts Monitor show two clear strands: in respect of fundamental institutional changes in access to dual-system IVET which limit the autonomy and dominant role of companies in the selection of applicants, the experts consider reform efforts to be futile. Reform proposals only have a chance of success provided that they do not interfere with the prevailing market-determined inclusion mechanisms. Fundamental changes in the transition system or a refocusing of vocational orientation provision in schools within the general education system are proposals which do not affect the principle of inclusion by market forces, and which may even reduce the costs and enhance the benefits of in-company IVET. Their likelihood of realisation is therefore rated more highly. Nevertheless, most experts believe that implementation will take time, and 2015 as a target year might be too soon.