Legislation under discussion
Federal uniformity in vocational education and training
Thomas Klubertz: Plea for federal competence in the field of vocational education and training
URN: urn:nbn:de:0035-0089-1
There were no taboo subjects for the Commission on Modernising the Federal Order, established by the Bundestag and the Bundesrat in October 2003, when it began scrutinising the legislative competencies of the Federal and state governments. Out-of school vocational training is among the things being tested.
As part of the positions they stated in preparation for the third session of the Commission in Berlin in December 2003, two of the experts consulted came out for the transfer of competence for out-of-school education to the federal states (Prof. Dr. Rupert Scholz, Prof. Dr. Fritz W. Scharpf). Others provided more general formulations to the effect that there was absolutely no need for uniform federal regulation of the right of business (Art. 74 Paragraph 1 No. 11 of the Basic Law) as a whole (Prof. Dr. Edzard Schmidt-Jortzig). Only one expert referred to the importance of vocational education and training for the unity of the economy on the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany and explicitly came out in favour of the continuance of federal competence in this area (Prof. Dr. Peter M. Huber). The heads of the state governments had also demanded competencies in the field of the vocational education and training in a common paper as far back as March 2003.The Minister President of Baden-Württemberg Erwin Teufel, took up this demand in mid-January 2004 in the RHEINISCHER MERKUR (issue 2/2004).
While the general demand of the Ministers President for more competencies for the state legislators does appear understandable from the point of view of constitutional policy, transfer of competence for the field of vocational education and training to the states would entail substantial disadvantages from the point of view of educational policy.
The key purpose of the Vocational Training Act (BBiG) of 14 August 1969 was to do away with the splitting up of the law through diverging state regulations (Bundestag document V/4260, p. 3). In particular, the exclusivity principle laid down in §28 paragraph 1 BBiG was intended to ensure through uniform training content that the quality of vocational education and training satisfied the requirements in the occupation and at the same time that employees were guaranteed a high degree of mobility and need-oriented adaptation prerequisites. Subsequently the uniform federal regulation of vocational education and training, not least because of the transparency that resulted from it, also proved to be a locational advantage for business. In 1994, when Art. 72 Paragraph 2 of the Basic Law was amended with the aim of limiting competing legislation by the federal government, the criterion of "maintaining economic unity" in the old version of the Law was expressly retained in the new version. An explanation of the minutes in this connection states: "The revised version of Article 72 of the Basic Law leaves the objective regulating competence of the federal government for vocational education and training untouched.. The preconditions for a federal statutory regulation of vocational education and training by means of a law will continue to exist in the future because this is required for legal or economic unity in the interests of the state as a whole." (Bundestag document 12/8165, pp. 31 f.)
Following this up, the Federal Constitutional Court explained in its judgement on the Care for the Elderly Act (AltPflG) of 24 October 2002 (Az.: 2 BvF 1/01): "A federal law is in any case needed to create a uniform economic area and thus to preserve economic unity when it has to ensure the uniformity of vocational education and training or when it has to provide for equal opportunities of access to occupations or trades in all states, regardless of the category in which the occupational group itself belongs from the point of view of competence. It is true that each state can regulate such matters - and can do so at a high professional level - without compromising the interests of the other states. However, different training and admission prerequisites can erect troublesome boundaries in the German economic area; they can cause an agglomeration or thinning out of trainees in certain regions; they can adversely affect the level of training and thus be the reason for substantially reduced chances for trainees and for a deterioration of the occupational situation throughout the country."
Nowadays the adverse affects can no longer remain restricted to the German economic area. Although competence for vocational education and training under Art. 150 of the EC Treaty still lies with the member states, in the interests of eliminating obstacles to mobility the member states are striving to create compatibility of the systems of general and vocational education and the greatest possible transparency by the year 2010 as a precondition for the effective recognition of qualifications acquired anywhere in the European Union. Thus the harmonisation of the systems at the European level has been going on for a long time. European job descriptions are being drafted in various fields (e.g. transport service clerk as an initial training occupation or solateur as a continuing training occupation. The German automotive mechatronics engineer already corresponds to the European job description worked out in a Leonardo project. To some extent European occupation standards even result from developments in other fields of competence (e.g. professional driver).
Abandonment of federal uniformity in out-of-school vocational education and training would unavoidably entail the loss of opportunities to participate in and help shape the European development described. Even today the German system of vocational education and training does not meet with the appreciation that is its due in the European Commission. This finds expression in the proposed guidelines for recognition of certificates of vocational competence, according to which German (dual/full-time school) vocational education and training is assigned to the second lowest of five levels of quality. Dismemberment in up to 16 different training variants and quality levels in the same occupation would further weaken the German position and thus substantially reduce the chances of German employees in the European labour market.
For these reasons the employers (BDI, BDA, BfB, BGA, DBV, HDE, DIHK, ZDH), employees (among others the DGB, DBB, GEW, IG Bau, IG BCE, IG Metall, ver.di), representatives of the federal government (BMWA, BMBF, BMI) and of the state governments appealed to all those concerned at a meeting of the steering committee of the Federal Institute for Vocational Education and Training on 12 December 2003 (see box, right) to take a firm stand for retention of the existing competencies in the field of vocational education and training. It is to be hoped that the appeal will be heard.
