Bundesinstitut für Berufsbildung (BIBB)

Central issues relating to the development of the DQR

Two main issues have thus far formed the main area of focus in the consultations on the DQR:

• firstly, the transfer of the European understanding of competence determining the EQF to a national semantic level, i.e. the specific German formulation of a competence matrix featuring vertical differentiation in reference levels and horizontal differentiation in terms of competence dimensions;
• secondly, the issue of the content description of the various matrix units. This is currently forming the basis of the present process of drawing up alignment proposals for existing qualifications being conducted by a range of working groups.

In addition to the structural tasks directly affecting the DQR, we are also facing the issue of the legal, administrative and regulatory consequences arising in the wake of the competence matrix which needs to be drawn up and imbued with life in educational policy terms.

Moving beyond the dual system in VET thinking

The papers by ESSER (2008, 2009) and NEHLS (2008) already mentioned tackle both the specific topics of alignment and transparency as well as dealing with the vocational principle in its capacity as an "organisational principle" of the German system of vocational education and training (DEIßINGER 1998). NEHLS (2008, p. 50), for example, points out that fundamental consideration needs to be accorded to the fact that "alignment towards competence and employability skills (does not mean) that socially normed and standardised learning processes (such as in the form of training regulations) will be replaced by a combination of arbitrary learning stipulations". The draft template for the DQR of February 2009 also makes these delineations visible. Such a process of delineation is likely to become problematical if there is an absence of readiness to move beyond the dual system in thinking about VET. Although NEHLS indicates that the DQR should be aligned in such a way so as to "enable all young people and adults to acquire recognised and high quality competences capable of long- term and connective application on the labour market within the scope of lifelong learning" (p. 50), the primary goals from the perspective of the social partners seem thus far to have been to secure the established structures of the German vocational education and training system whilst accepting European terminology in areas where such structures are not capable of direct focus. The central significance accorded to the topic of permeability does not, therefore, come as any great surprise. ESSER (2009) deploys the term removing the pillars (p. 47) in this regard, although the perspective he pusues in adopting this concept relates to the demarcation line between vocational training and higher education - admittedly a highly relevant delineation within the German educational system - rather than to the demarcations partly responsible for the creation of the transitional system (MÜNK/RÜTZEL/SCHMIDT 2008), which has been the object of considerable debate in both academic research and educational policy papers. Although the label of "programme of measures" or "opportunity enhancement system" has been attached to this transitional system depending on respective points of view, a closer examination of the structures it exhibits makes it clear that there are at least two transitional thresholds which do not deserve to be accorded such an appellation if one adopts a systematic perspective:

1. the transition from vocational training preparation to "regular" (i.e. formalised and therefore "full") vocational education and training within the dual system
   and
2. the transition from the full-time vocational school system to the dual system.
   

Rethinking the delineations within the understanding of competence and between qualifications

A further area of VET conflict opens up if we address the aspect which seems to dominate the whole design concept of the EQF: the fact that domain specific bundles of competences are perfectly capable of exhibiting varying degrees of complexity, even if they are associated with a system such as the dual system in Germany, which most stakeholders regard as ideal and homogeneous. The reservations expressed towards a differentiated observation of the levels of competence between individual training domains make it clear that from an employer's point of view - at least from the perspective of the craft trades - Germany has difficulties in getting to grips which such a concept, which would affect the formal principle of equivalence of training occupations. ESSER, for example, (2009, p. 48) makes a case for a "scenario 2", which involves following a similar process to that adopted with the "Bologna qualifications" within the higher education sector and clearly localising qualifications or VET entry entitlements to a certain reference level of the DQR whilst permitting various requirement levels only within a skills area. The international backwardness Germany displays in terms of non-formal and informal learning, which is a by-product of this approach, should also be placed within the context of the clearly emphasised exclusivity of the training qualifications in the dual system and the formal significance of such qualifications within the German entitlement system, even if we take into account that there has hitherto been an absence of comprehensive and reliable accreditation structures and mechanisms within formalised VET, i.e. between the various segments.

This background presents us with a series of unresolved tasks within the German system of vocational education and training. The introduction of the DQR could provide a new impetus to finding solutions in these areas (cf. box).

Questions to the German VET system

• How should we deal with the increasing pluralism of the VET system (apprenticeships, full-time school based VET, vocational training preparation and other provider measures etc.) and what perspective should we adopt in recording the so-called "transitional system" within the DQR?
• What approach should we adopt towards the varying competence characteristics contained within the different initial training domains, each of which features its own "occupational fields" and which include "school-based" occupations as well as state recognised training occupations?
• Which policy and didactic instruments will be required to accord appropriate consideration to the function of school-based vocational training within the overall VET system, especially with regard to interlinkages and accreditation mechanisms, and thus enhance its value?
• To what extent can or should informally acquired competences be linked with the certification structures of conventional educational pathways and what could be the nature of a certification or accreditation system for this purpose which includes institutional and legal areas of responsibility?
  

Solving acceptance problems of full-time school based vocational training

We spoke above of "demarcation lines". These demarcation lines are a main contributing factor in making vocational education and training which takes place outside the dual system, i.e. at vocational schools, one of the problem zones within the German VET system. Although school based vocational training is recognised in terms of its educational policy function, it has traditionally suffered from the subordinate role accorded to the training function of school-based qualifications (FELLER 2002). In light of the "hegemony" of the dual system of training, the so-called school-based occupations according to federal state law in particular still find that they are required to measure the results of their training against apprenticeships. The same applies to assistant qualifications in the form generally awarded at (higher) full-time vocational schools. This problem is rendered explosive by the shortage of apprenticeships and by the displacement effects on the training markets, which over the course of recent years have led to an increase in the number of pupils at full-time vocational schools and an attendant decrease in the number of vocational school pupils with a training contract. In contrast to vocational schools in Austria (AFF 2006), full-time vocational schools in Germany only fulfil classical training tasks to a very limited extent. The emphasis of occupational field aligned basic vocational training indicates the intention for follow-up vocational training within the dual system, and pupils have a relatively clear perception of this (DEIßINGER/RUF 2007). At the same time, this means that occupations which are regulated in accordance with federal law and for which training takes place at full-time vocational schools exhibit different values on the labour market compared to training courses constructed under federal state law and which are therefore in quasi competition with state recognised training occupations and, by extension, with the dual system of vocational education and training.

No constructive solution to these acceptance or reception problems has thus far been arrived at. Although reforms to vocational training law provide formal stipulations for this purpose, actual responsibility for resolving the problem is delegated to the federal states (cf. LORENZ/EBERT/KRÜGER 2005). The aim of one of the "key paragraphs" of the Vocational Training Act in this area is to enable periods of school-based vocational training to be credited towards a dual course of vocational education and training.

This also constitutes a specific educational policy task within the context of the DQR. It is ultimately virtually inconceivable that the individual federal states, whose school systems vary considerably in some areas, and the chambers, which operate using a variety of local and regional practice with regard to accreditation, will remain the sole setters of standards. The DQR unmistakably implies a demand for a standardised and reliable accreditation system with regard to both full-time and part-time qualifying VET measures when the issue is to interlock such measures with the dual system. In addition to legal reform processes, relativising lines of demarcation in such a way so as to open up transitions requires the societal stakeholders managing the dual system within the scope of a bottom-up approach to trust in the training performances of the other vocational training "sub-systems". The fact that assistant qualifications acquired at full-time vocational schools are accorded so little recognition with regard to admittance to chamber examinations or partial accreditation towards a subsequent course of vocational training must remain unsatisfactory and is difficult to comprehend (DEIßINGER/RUF 2007). It particularly defies rational understanding that the "setting" of a specific quality of occupational competence over the principle of the equivalence of training occupations (ESSER 2008, p. 49) should only be reserved for the latter.

Accepting plurality instead of merely thinking in dual terms

My own view is that any talk of a "Europeanisation" of the German educational landscape in connection with the DQR means two things:

1. the securing and further development of the parts of the vocational education and training system which are viewed as being purposeful in functional, pedagogical and societal terms;and also
2. the readiness to embrace something new in order to take a constructive approach to overcoming national problem areas, not merely because it is new.

In my opinion, the latter excludes any unquestioned continuation of structural characteristics of the German system. These include a marked separation of educational pathways, educational levels and educational areas and the exclusive significance of dual VET and an attendant implicit devaluation of qualifications alternatives. The perspective of the DQR makes it appear more than problematic for Germany to continue to permit the pluralisation and fragmentation of the structures of its vocational education and training system - against the background of the de facto selectivity (subject to different conditions) of this dual system - without taking account of such plurality within the scope of reliable transitional routes and accreditation structures. This plurality includes the inventory of vocational preparation and integration measures intended for disadvantaged young people as well as, in an extended sense, informal and non-formal learning. New educational policy alignments within this area of action must not merely be characterised by the development of a readiness on the part of the responsible stakeholders to forgo the primary focusing of VET policy on the dual system. Notwithstanding this, a specific understanding of curricular and organisational regulation at the level of didactic management mainly aligned towards an idea of the "whole occupation" in terms of the structuring and planning of learning stipulations and thus generating the exclusive character of this specific form of competence acquisition, corresponds to the principle of the regulated occupation, which in turn exhibits an unmistakeable area of conflict to the partial qualifications practised within the "system of measures" or "transitional system" respectively (DEIßINGER 1998). It is, however, absolutely clear that the established vocational education and training system also benefits from legal and regulatory policy stipulations rather than merely "living" from the traditions which have developed and from trust in the didactic quality of its own training services. Such stipulations include the general regulatory framework laid down by the Vocational Training Act and the attendant implicit postulate stating that all training occupations are equivalent. Given the fact that established dual VET structures have, with the exception of the external examination, thus far closed off reliable connections with other forms of vocational training or to other areas in which competences may be acquired, an obvious approach with regard to the DQR is to resolve the sensitive call for "new" accreditation mechanisms in such a way that such mechanisms are linked in with dual vocational education and training. Such a perspective should be reflected in the DQR. For this purpose, the design concept of the DQR must go beyond being structured on multiple levels in terms of vocational training and act in the interests of the reform implications invoked on all sides by actually providing potential pathways for the legal, institutional and didactic realisation of the transparency and permeability rather than merely outlining such concepts in rhetorical terms. If it should not succeed in achieving this, work on the "Europeanisation" of the German VET landscape would count for nothing and would simply become part of the potential rhetoric of the existing political and administrative system.

Using the DQR for real transitions in vocational training

It seems as yet unclear whether the principles of the EQF indicating the "opening of borders" and which also (beyond the narrower outcome idea) form the basis of the Anglo-Saxon influenced competence approach and the translation of such an approach to a qualifications framework can really be accorded consideration within a German transparency instrument. Proposals for a didactically sensible and socially responsible internal differentiation are available and would be able to tackle the transitional and linkage problems stated and thus also address alignment problems within the context of the DQR (cf. e.g. EULER/SEVERING 2007). This represents a revisiting of the topic of modularisation (key word: training modules) which still has, however, some way to run as an emotive term within the German educational debate and as a genuinely Anglo-Saxon concept (DEIßINGER 2009). For this reason especially, it would be important to address this topic in a more differentiated manner. In my view, the DQR in particular requires a differentiated form of modularisation aligned towards the principle of the regulated occupation which does not need to be a copy of the Anglo-Saxon modular approach. This would provide the option of being able to undertake didactically reflected and objective alignments within the context of the DQR rather than putting our faith in stipulations. The debate concerning the Europeanisation of German vocational training obviously exhibits far more facets than have been addressed within the present article. Notwithstanding this, I would like in conclusion to adopt a consciously normative approach for this paper by associating myself with a policy document produced by the Federal Catholic Youth Social Work Association (BAGKJS 2009) which, in regard to the DQR, issues a warning that we must not lose sight of the educational opportunities for disadvantaged young people. This represents an exhortation for the VET policy action area to absorb the basic ideas of the EQF or DQR in unabridged form as well as alerting the consciousness of the policy stakeholders to the "educational biography approach" and thereby to the concept of competence. Although no direct adoption of the outcome principle originating within the Anglo-Saxon world is required for this purpose, we need to deal comprehensively with the "construction sites" contained within the German educational and vocational education and training system. With regard to the "transitional system", my view is that the major guiding principle should be that aspects such as traditions, areas of responsibility and trust in something which is fully tried and tested do not abandon those young people who do not benefit from a "regulated system" of vocational education and training (of whatever type). To ignore such young people, especially in Germany would be an admission of pedagogical and educational policy bankruptcy.

Literature

• AFF, J.: Berufliche Bildung in Vollzeitschulen - konjunkturabhängige Hebamme des dualen Systems oder eigenständige bildungspolitische Option? In: Eckert, M.; Zöller, A. (Eds.): Der europäische Berufsbildungsraum - Beiträge der Berufsbildungsforschung. Bielefeld 2006, pp. 125-138
• BAGKJS: Kompetenzen - nicht allein Abschlüsse - entscheiden. Mit Hilfe des Deutschen Qualifikationsrahmens benachteiligten Jugendlichen Bildungschancen ermöglichen. Policy document of 25 May 2009
• DEIßINGER, Th.: Beruflichkeit als "organisierendes Prinzip" der deutschen Berufsausbildung. Markt Schwaben 1998
• DEIßINGER, Th.: Modularisierung im angelsächsischen Kulturraum - bildungspolitische Ausgangslagen und strukturelle Umsetzungen im Großbritannien. In: Pilz, M. (Ed.): Modularisierungsansätze in der Berufsbildung. Deutschland, Österreich, Schweiz sowie Großbritannien im Vergleich. Bielefeld 2009, pp. 113-131
• DEIßINGER, Th.; RUF, M.: Der Schulversuch "Kaufmännisches Berufskolleg mit Übungsfirma" im Kontext des novellierten Berufsbildungsgesetzes - Ein Reformansatz zur Lösung des "Imageproblems" vollzeitschulischer Berufsbildung? In: ZBW 103 (2007) 3, pp. 345-366
• ESSER, F. H.: DQR konkret: Vorschlag der Spitzenorganisationen der Deutschen Wirtschaft. In: BWP 37 (2008) 3, pp. 48-51
• ESSER, F. H.: Der DQR in der Entwicklung - Würdigung und Vorausschau. In: BWP 38 (2009) Issue 4, pp. 45-49
• EULER, D.; SEVERING, E.: Flexible Ausbildungswege in der Berufsbildung. Bielefeld 2007
• FELLER, G.: Leistungen und Defizite der Berufsfachschule als Bildungsgang mit Berufsabschluss. In: Wingens, M.; Sackmann, R. (Eds.): Bildung und Beruf: Ausbildung und berufsstruktureller Wandel in der Wissensgesellschaft. Weinheim 2002, pp. 139-156
• HELLWIG, S.: Zur Vereinbarkeit von Competency-based Training (CBT) und Berufsprinzip - Konzepte der Berufsbildung im Vergleich. Wiesbaden 2008
• LORENZ, K.; EBERT, F.; KRÜGER, M.: Das neue Berufsbildungsgesetz - Chancen und Grenzen für die berufsbildenden Schulen in Deutschland. In: Wirtschaft und Erziehung 57 (2005) 5, pp. 167-174
• MÜNK, D.; RÜTZEL, J.; SCHMIDT, C. (Hrsg.): Labyrinth Übergangssystem. Forschungserträge und Entwicklungsperspektiven der Benachteiligtenförderung zwischen Schule, Ausbildung, Arbeit und Beruf. Bonn 2008
• NEHLS, H.: Noch kein Konsens bei der Konkretisierung eines Deutschen Qualifikationsrahmens. In: BWP 37 (2008) 2, pp. 48-51
  

Last modified on: July 25, 2012