The National Report of Germany

Part I: The background and context for workplace learning partnerships in Germany (Draft version 30.11.2006)

Contents

1 Introduction

2 Learning Site Co-operation and Workplace Learning Partnerships: Some Conceptual Clarifications

3 Workplace Learning Partnerships within the German System of Vocational Education and Training

3.1. Organizational structures in the German context

3.2. The current debate

1 Introduction

The dynamic between technological and economic changes in the working world, based on the conditions of international competitive quality, gives rise to the question of how vocational education can be more effectively structured.

The small business is integrated more and more into the delivery structures, chain of production, comprehensive service offers as well as having contact to clients and business partners. Internal relationships and the relationships between clients define the quality management concepts in the firms. At the same time, a reduction can be seen in function-oriented perception of tasks and division of work: competence and responsibilities are being placed directly in the production areas, which means that the employees work more independently. Coping with these challenges requires that they have a holistic understanding of the companies’ work and business processes as well as knowledge of inter-business projects and working cooperation.

At the same time, smaller and middling-sized firms are specializing more and more. This specialization limits the individual company’s ability to train for a labor market that is requiring a flexible and mobile workforce. Occupational training stands, therefore, before a dilemma. On the one hand, businesses need specialists that not only have knowledge of their own area of expertise, but who can also consider the different departments and businesses and the way they function and chain of production. On the other hand, the areas of expertise become more and more specialized, so that it is often not possible to receive adequate occupational qualifications in a small business.

For this reason, a broad education, as is required by skilled labor market, is often not possible. In the future, occupational training and continuing education will, therefore, occur in conjunction with other firms.

Vocational education in small businesses is reaching its limits: it has come into conflict with an economy that is dependent upon understanding connections, mobility, and flexibility. An alternative for dual-qualification could be found in cooperative edu-cation partnerships between businesses where students or trainees share learning oppor-tunities in different firms. Partnerships of this kind, which facilitate the exchange of trainees and provide the latter with opportunities to obtain vocational qualifications within a genuine work environment and which are known as “workplace learning part-nerships”, form the general topic of the Leonardo project “Improving the Quality of Informal Learning through Tools and Instruments for Workplace Learning Partnerships (WLPs?)” (henceforth referred to under the short title “Work & Learning Partners”).

The aim of the present paper, which has been prepared as an internal interim product within the Work & Learning Partners project, is to give an overview of the tra-ditions and current practices of workplace learning partnerships in Germany and thereby to contribute to a mutual understanding among the project partners of the con-tent and the prospects of this particular educational concept. The text is primarily in-tended as a literature review and a state-of-the-art-report, drawing particularly on em-pirical studies directed by the Federal Institute for Vocational Education (BIBB) and research activities undertaken recently in the context of other projects at the Institute Technology and Education, especially the GAPA project.

2 Learning Site Co-operation and Workplace Learning Partnerships: Some Conceptual Clarifications

Workplace learning partnerships are one of several models of collaborative vocational education and training existing within the German context. These educational partner-ships (Ausbildungsverbünde) or learning site partnerships (Lernortverbünde) include various patterns of relationships between the different institutions in which vocational training takes place and which are commonly referred to as “learning sites” (see Bau/Meerten 2005; Euler/Berger 1999). The latter can be differentiated according to their functions within the educational system and are also maintained by different bodies. Besides the training company, which takes over the responsibility for the apprenticeship contract and for the practical part of the traineeship, there exist the vocational school and in some cases the cross-company training centre operated jointly by smaller firms as learning sites. In the framework of dual apprenticeship training the learning sites, particularly the enterprise and the vocational schools as the fundamental components of the system of dual ap-prenticeship training, are intended to mutually complement each other in the sense that companies are responsible for integrating the trainee into the work environment and providing opportunities for work experience whilst schools have the mission to equip trainees with a broad education of both general and vocational content (Hoppe, Frede et al. 2005). It was only in the new Vocational Education and Training Act (Berufsbildungsgesetz – BBiG? , henceforth referred to as “BBiG 2005”), which came into force on April 1, 2005, that the co-operation between the different learning sites was acknowledged as an integral part of the training process (see clause 2 section 2).

The establishment of learning site partnerships was being promoted and funded by the Federal Government in the 1990s in an attempt to respond to the decline of regular in-company training opportunities, which was particularly due to a reduction of trainee positions in industrial companies (see Rauner 2003, 8–9). It was the objective of these measures to provide a substitute by employing the training facilities of cross-company training centres, vocational schools as well as training workshops of large en-terprises for the creation of alternative training opportunities. The pedagogical concept that underlies these learning site partnerships is the idea of a combination of practical training and theoretical instruction, with practical training being understood as the ac-quisition and continuous exercise of practical skills regardless of their position within the productive work process. Practical training is thus separated from genuine work ex-perience.

This concept of “systematic learning” has been the subject of controversial de-bates over the past decades concerning the best way to organize learning processes and vocational training in particular. Systematic learning was conceived of as an organized and planned process of acquiring knowledge, which was considered methodologically superior to the day-to-day practice of “situative” learning in the ordinary work process. Its core idea is to free the occupational curriculum and the instruction process from the supposed contingencies of the concrete work process and to set up an educational pro-gramme capable of conveying full-fledged and standardized vocational qualifications to the participants. In this respect the concept of systematic learning is embedded into a general tendency that shaped the dual system of vocational education as a whole, namely, the strive for objectivity, standardization and comparability of qualifications, which can be observed in particular with regard to the organization of final examina-tions (see e. g. Tutschner/Wittig 2005, forthcoming).

Whereas the overall objective of a system of “pure” and standardized qualifica-tions is advantageous from a normative point of view because it helps organizing the educational system and the labour market according to the principle of equal opportu-nities, which in turn seems to be indispensable for social justice, the method of systematic practical training and its application in the context of learning site partnerships nev-ertheless appear to be somewhat problematic as regards the pedagogical implications. “Systematic” learning has been criticized for transferring only abstract practical skills which lack the connection to the real operations within a business firm.

The argument is that it is precisely this embeddedness in concrete work processes which is necessary for acquiring occupational competence in the sense that the employee is able to act in-dependently and to respond properly to the actual demands of the work reality. Learning site partnerships therefore face the fundamental objection that in the long run they might diminish the quality of vocational education and training by neglecting the peda-gogical importance of work experience. This is also why these models are usually considered a “second-best” model in the sense that learning site partnerships are expected to step in only where the training capacities of the regular dual model of vocational training are insufficient (see Rauner 2003, 9–10).

Given the importance of real work experience objections might also be raised against the very term “systematic learning”, for the work process is no less organized and systematic than training courses outside the firm, but this problem cannot be discussed here. Suffice it to say that a collaboration between learning sites that does not involve the integration of trainees into productive work is not regarded as a promising model of vocational education or as an alternative to single-company training within the dual system. Workplace learning partnerships, on the contrary, are based on the idea of learn-ing within the business operations of enterprises. They are concluded between enter-prises which make use of their own training capacities instead of using the learning op-portunities provided by training centres and which mutually complement their respec-tive educational potentials.

A workplace learning partnership within the dual system thus includes several enterprises and at least one vocational school. Depending on the circumstances and needs of the particular situation other partners, such as chambers, industrial or professional associations, or other educational institutions, might be in-volved as well. The crucial feature of workplace learning partnerships is that trainees or apprentices rotate between the participating enterprises in the course of their practical training. This model, as an ideal-type, is expected to entail some advantages (see Kurz 2005): First of all, apprentices have the opportunity to become acquainted with various enterprises and their respective working methods or alternative approaches in terms of “best practice”. This means that they have the chance of acquiring broader work ex-perience. Second, being integrated into qualified work tasks can have a positive effect on the motivation of trainees and improve the learning process. Third, since trainees ac-quire competences ranging over more than one enterprise, their vocational identity (as opposed to “corporate citizenship” defined by the affiliation to a single enterprise) is strengthened and their ability to work autonomously and to solve problems is improved.

In addition to these predominantly pedagogical features, which benefit first and foremost the trainees, there are also advantages for the enterprises and for the regions where workplace learning partnerships take place. Companies have the opportunity to share training capacities and resources and thus to reduce training costs, which particu-larly smaller firms might otherwise not be able to cover. They also benefit from the con-tinuous exchange with competent partners and vocational training experts. Finally, workplace learning partnerships are an instrument of human resource development as they enable companies to train their own prospective employees instead of hiring staff via external recruitment only. From the point of view of the regions workplace learning partnerships can have positive effects in the sense that they allow for the exploitation of training potentials that otherwise might be left unused, which in turn can lead to an in-crease of the number of available training positions and improve the prospects of young people. Because of the utilization of economic and scientific know-how for vo-cational training, there is also the possibility that the region will become more attractive for investors (Kurz 2005).

3 Workplace Learning Partnerships within the German System of Vocational Education and Training

3.1. Organizational structures in the German context

The idea of organizing vocational education in co-operative schemes between firms is by no means unknown to the German system of vocational education and training and especially to the dual system. It is quite common in certain economic sectors that ap-prentices undergo parts of their practical vocational training in another enterprise than their own in case that a specific part of the respective training regulation is not captured by the business activities and work processes in the trainee’s regular training firm.

This possibility has long since been provided for in clause 22 section 2 of the German Voca-tional Education and Training Act of 1969, according to which a training centre or company where the knowledge and skills specified in an occupational curriculum can-not be taught in their full extent is nevertheless considered “appropriate” if these short-comings are compensated by measures taking place at other learning sites.

The new Vo-cational Education and Training Act contains an identical provision (clause 27 section 2 BBiG? 2005). Educational contents that cannot be covered by one firm may be covered either by co-operating with other enterprises and exchanging students among them or by special training centres run jointly by several companies. From the point of view of the German dual system, however, the latter are regarded only as a “second-best” method, whereas in-company training in real work processes is generally being fa-voured.

Within the general legal framework there are a number of different organiza-tional models for workplace learning partnerships: educational consortiums, commis-sioned education, educational associations, and directing firms with partner firms. In practice, many mixed forms made up of the different organizational models. Non-bureaucratic forms of cooperation, in which the particular regional peculiarities can be adapted are generally preferred.

Educational consortium: Educational partnerships are generally founded, or rather entered into formally, by firms that mutually complement each other. The firms define themselves as members of a consortium in the sense of an “occasional association” as defined by clause 705 of the Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch), in order to achieve a common goal. Each firm in the consortium is a training firm according to the provi-sions of the Vocational Training Act offering learning opportunities. It is the students’ base firm and gains other firms as “supplemental place of education.” Thus, each firm is its own educational base for their own students, but also a supplemental place of learning for the students of the other firms in the partnership.

A balanced relationship is striven toward for the alternating demands and per-formance, so that an organizational form based on a less formal level can be achieved. A generally balanced giving and taking within the partnership can eliminate the need for payment which minimizes administration expenses. All parties win with this model. The open structures of a consortium allow, when needed, fast, flexible and uncompli-cated agreements to be made and learning and workplaces can be easily exchanged. This model is estimated to be appropriate in most cases. However, there are organizational alternatives, which shall be described only briefly:

Commissioned education: Commissioned education, which is applicable primarily within a system of dual apprenticeship training, is when another partner firm or an educational institute takes over teaching certain contents that cannot be covered in a firm. The student signs a training contract with their base firm. Commissioned educa-tion can cover anything from single courses to entire years.

Educational associations: An educational association is founded by many firms for the purpose of training. The educational association can take over many wide-reaching tasks in order to relieve the single firms from bureaucratic expenses. The educational association takes over the choosing and hiring of partner firms.

Directing firm with partner firms: In this organizational form, the tasks of the educa-tional association are, for the most part taken over by the directing firm. The students sign their training contracts with the directing firm. The educational organization and planing is run by the directing firm. Certain educational contents can be taught in part-ner firms.

The new Vocational Education and Training Act of 2005 now offers also the op-tion that training providers formally establish an educational partnership (Ausbildungsver-bund) and jointly conclude apprenticeship contracts with their trainees (see clause 10 section 5 BBiG? 2005). It should be noted, however, that this provision is merely an offi-cial recognition or formalization of existing practices and not an introduction of new instruments. The change of the legal basis therefore does not affect the organizational models described above.

3.2. The current debate

Vocational education within the dual system as it has emerged during the industrialisa-tion traditionally that the entire apprenticeship training takes place in one and the same company. Even though the craft trades had a long-standing tradition of mobility in the sense that trainees were required to be on travels for a certain time, thereby acquiring skills and competencies beyond the work routines of their own training enterprises and thus a more comprehensive vocational identity, the modern system of vocational train-ing as a whole was oriented towards a different model, namely, the Taylorist approach of adapting the skills of the workforce to mechanical production processes. The objec-tive of this industrial model of vocational education was to provide workers with highly specialized qualifications to fit into diversified work processes and to meet the employ-ers’ needs as exactly as possible (see Rauner 2003, 7).

Nevertheless, the legal framework of vocational training also contains provisions that allow for the exchange or rotation of trainees between different firms, as was men-tioned above. The crucial point is, however, that these means of co-operation were tra-ditionally regarded as a mere remedy for possible shortcomings of single enterprises concerning particular elements of the vocational curriculum, but not as a general strat-egy. That is, workplace learning partnerships were considered an exceptional measure. Moreover, the lack of opportunities for in-company training in genuine work processes was rather compensated by training measures outside the regular business activities, e. g. by the establishment of cross-company training centres, particularly in East Germany where they have virtually developed into a new standard (see Rauner 2003, 10), which have often been criticized for providing an artificial kind of training which is practical in nature but isolated from the realities of the productive work process.

In the meantime the predominant role of single-company vocational training has been called into question by technological innovations and changes in the economic environment. One can identify at least three tendencies which are being discussed by VET experts and stakeholders in Germany and which provide arguments in favour of increased educational co-operation between enterprises (see Rauner 2003, 3–6):

Firstly, due to technological innovations such as the extensive use of information and tele-communication technology there is an increase in occupation-specific knowledge and a tendency towards occupational profiles based on a holistic understanding of complex and comprehensive work processes instead of a diversification into highly specialized job tasks. This is to say that the “knowledge explosion” entails to some extent a reversal of the division of labour. The fulfilment of occupational tasks therefore requires knowledge of production processes and supply chains beyond the single enterprise.

Secondly, organizational development in companies is characterized by continuous inno-vation with regard to products and processes, which also means that wholly new busi-ness areas are developed. If employees are to keep in touch with the development of their enterprise and to participate in changing processes actively, their qualifications have to be flexible and to be oriented towards the greater environment in which their company is situated.

Thirdly, due to the interdependencies engendered by modern pro-duction processes, there is an increasing embeddedness of the single enterprise into various network structures such as supply chains, distribution channels, customer rela-tions and the like. With regard to human resource development this leads to an increas-ing demand for what can be termed “systems competence”, i. e. awareness of the struc-tures to which the enterprise is linked and the ability to adjust one’s job performance accordingly, on the part of the workforce.

In sum, there is an increasing need for holis-tic and process-oriented qualifications, which stretch beyond the limits of the single enterprise and which can be provided in the course of one-company apprenticeship training only with difficulties or not at all. Despite the positive evaluation of workplace learning partnerships in general (see also the following section), this method of organizing vocational education and training still has not, in the German discussion, been accepted as a model for the system of vo-cational education and training as a whole. Empirically, workplace learning partnerships still are an exception, and they appear to face some impediments which prevent them form being applied more frequently or to a greater extent. One possible reason why workplace learning partnerships are only reluctantly being put into practice is that both instructors and vocational schoolteachers are biased in favour of the traditional appren-ticeship and against co-operative structures. This hypothesis has received some support from empirical investigations, but the respective surveys also indicate that these preju-dices can easily be overcome by experience (Rauner 2003, 16).

A more serious difficulty arises on the institutional level because the organization of dual apprenticeship training is by itself unfavourable for the establishment of partnerships between enterprises and schools. To the extent that vocational schools are involved in workplace learning part-nerships and take over the responsibility for the co-ordination of the partnership, they are encountering certain institutional limits arising from the different roles assigned to the learning sites in the dual system. Vocational schools are a part of the school system run by the states and governed by state laws that are oriented primarily to general edu-cation. On the other hand, vocational education – more specifically, its practical part – is governed by federal law, which in turn pays no attention to the content of the school curriculum and assigns the primary responsibility for the apprenticeship to the enter-prises. Consequently there is normally only little co-ordination between the school and the training company, which means that the involvement of vocational schools in work-place learning partnerships requires additional efforts on the parts of the teachers. This observation gives additional support to the call for institutional reforms to develop the vocational schools into regional competence centres in the field of vocational training and to give them a more substantive role in the training process (Rauner 2003, 18).