Bundesinstitut für Berufsbildung (BIBB)

The group of young people from a migrant background living in Germany is extremely heterogeneous. The differences do not only relate to the ethnic or geographical origin of the young people. Their families have also migrated to Germany for various reasons and at different times. The majority of young migrants was born in Germany. Many have learned German in childhood, and a large proportion also possesses German citizenship. On the other hand, others have only been living in Germany for a short time, have gone into the German school system as lateral entrants with a low level of initial knowledge of German and, in some cases, do not even have secure residency status. The following analyses of the transition to vocational education and training will only accord partial consideration to the multifarious differences between young people originating from a migrant background. The differentiation undertaken of the migrant groups is largely aligned to the geographical origin of the young people or their families. A distinction will be drawn between four regions of origin.

From which states, over which periods of time and for which reasons did the families of the young people from a migrant background come to Germany over recent decades? We will begin by addressing these questions briefly. The most significant waves of immigration from the 1950's onwards will be outlined and the migrant population structures which have developed as a result will be illustrated.⁰¹

The first major wave of immigration began in the mid-1950's, when millions of foreign people, mainly from the rural regions of states in South-Eastern Europe and Turkey, were recruited as "guest workers" in the wake of the German "economic miracle" (see Box 1). Especially following the freeze on recruitment in 1973, many of these workers settled down in the Federal Republic of Germany and brought their families to join them rather than returning to their homeland as was the original intention. The migration of (late) resettlers from countries in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, which began on a modest scale from the late 1950's onwards and reached its peak between the late 1980's and mid-1990's, is of similar significance (see Box 1).

Alongside the migrants who arrived as part of these two main waves of immigration, recent decades have seen foreigners from all parts of the world move to Germany for various reasons. Differentiations can be made in this regard between "economic migration" (periods spent in Germany due to work, courses of study, training), "family migration" (reuniting of families, establishing a family) and "refugee migration" (especially asylum seekers and those fleeing civil war). (Expert Council of German Foundations on Integration and Migration, SVR 2011). The most significant type of immigration in Germany currently is the entry of seasonal and contract workers for a relatively tightly limited term. This is followed in second place by family migration, whereas the estimate is that longer term work migration and refugee migration are less significant in terms of numbers (SVR 2011).

In 2009, 7.1 million foreign nationals⁰² lived in Germany, representing 8.7% of the total population (Federal Office for Migration and Refugees 2011). Of these, just under 80% were from Europe⁰³ - 35% from EU states and 44% from non-EU states - 12% from Asia, 4% from Africa, 3% aus America and 0.2% from Australia and Oceania.⁰⁴ There were 1.7 million Turks, the largest group of foreign nationals and making up one quarter of the total foreign population, followed by Italian nationals (8%), Polish nationals (6%), Serbian nationals (5%), Greek nationals (4%) and Croatian nationals (3%) (Federal Office for Migration and Refugees 2011).

Foreign nationals, however, only account for part of the population which is from a migrant background (see Box 2). This group is much more extensive. According to calculations undertaken on the basis of the micro-census, it encompasses 15.7 million people in 2009, or just under one fifth (19%) of the total population of Germany (Federal Office for Migration and Refugees 2011).⁰⁵ Over half of persons from a migrant background (54%) possess German citizenship. Although just over two thirds (68%) have experience of migration themselves, the average time they have been resident in Germany is just under 21 years. Just under one third form part of the so-called "third generation", meaning that they were born in Germany.

In 2009, the amount of persons aged from 15 to 20 from a migrant background as a proportion of the German population as a whole was 25%. The corresponding proportion for the group aged 20 to 25 was 23% (Federal Office for Migration and Refugees 2011).⁰⁶ This means that around one quarter of those in the age range in which transition from general schooling to vocational education and training or higher education study generally takes place currently come from a family with a history of migration.

We know that opportunities to gain access to fully qualifying training are very highly dependent on the school qualification achieved and on the marks on the final school leaving certificate (BEICHT, FRIEDRICH und ULRICH 2008). Compared to young people not from a migrant background, young migrants obtain significantly worse school qualifications at the end of the period of general schooling. This makes the search for a training place considerably more difficult for them.

What, however, can explain why the children of migrants perform much more weakly in school despite the fact that most families with a history of migration have been living in Germany for decades? Why are the starting conditions which young migrants experience as they seek to take the route into vocational education and training so much worse?

1

Box

The two major waves of immigration since the 1950's

"Guest workers"
The first major wave of immigration began from the mid-1950's onwards when initial bottlenecks became apparent on the West German labour market and the Federal Government decided to pursue the recruitment of foreign workers (TREIBEL 2011). A recruitment treaty was concluded with Italy in 1955, and further relevant agreements were signed during the course of the 1960's with Spain and Greece (1960), Turkey (1961), Morocco (1963), Portugal (1964), Tunisia (1965) and Yugoslavia (1968). Several million foreign workers were recruited. These workers were given the title of "guest workers", reflecting the fact that the original intention was for their period of work in Germany to be temporary. The plan was for them then to return to their home countries in accordance with the so-called rotation principle and be replaced by new foreign workers as and when required (TREIBEL 2011). Initially, the main recruits were single men aged between 20 and 40, although women also began to arrive later. Until the mid-1960's, work migrants predominantly arrived from Italy and Spain. Increasing numbers were subsequently recruited from Turkey and Yugoslavia. Most guest workers originated from rural areas and were deployed as semi-skilled or unskilled workers in branches which had become increasingly unattractive for the indigenous workforce due to difficult working conditions and/or low levels of remuneration (TREIBEL 2011).

A halt to recruitment was decided in 1973 because of the recession triggered by the "oil crisis". At this point, there were a total of 2.6 million foreign employees in Germany. The fact that it was no longer possible for persons from non-EC countries to obtain a work permit for Germany meant that many of these workers were faced with the simple choice of returning to their homeland for ever or else remaining permanently. After 1973, however, "guest workers" already in the country still had the right of continued residence as well as being automatically permitted to bring family members to Germany to join them (spouses and dependent children). This consolidated a process which was described as the "settlement of foreign workers and their families in the Federal Republic of Germany", a procedure which had already become established in the 1960's (TREIBEL 2011, p. 60). Although the number of foreign employees decreased to 1.9 million by 1979 as a result of the freeze on recruitment (TREIBEL 2011), family reunifications meant that the foreign resident population as a whole grew from 4.0 million in 1973 to 4.3 million in 1979 (Federal Office for Migration and Refugees 2011).

(Late) resettlers
Immigration of resettlers or late resettlers was of similarly great quantitative significance. From 1993 onwards, the term "resettler" was replaced by the designation "late resettler" within the scope of amendments made to the relevant legal stipulations. (Late) resettlers, most of whom came from the (former) Soviet Union as well as from other Eastern European states, were considered to be of German ethnic origin pursuant to German Basic Law (Article 116). This meant that they were granted German citizenship following resettlement to Germany. There are historic reasons for the particular legal status that late resettlers enjoy.

Late resettlers are often referred to as "Russian Germans". During the 18th and 19th centuries, their ancestors were, for example, recruited as settlers by the Russian Csars of the time. In Russia, they lived in relatively autonomous colonies without close contact with the indigenous population, and no assimilation took place (TREIBEL 2011). Minorities of German origin underwent resettlement, deportation and persecution during the course of the Second World War. At the beginning of the 1950's, when the extensive post-war refugee and deportation movements were at an end, several million Germans (from the former Eastern regions of Germany) and people of German origin were still living in the Soviet Union or Eastern Europe, where they were often the object of discrimination.

Between 1950 and 1987, a total of 1.4 million resettlers came to the Federal Republic of Germany, mainly from Poland and Rumania (Hamburg Institute of International Economics, HWWI 2007). From 1988 onwards, the number of resettlers arriving each year increased dramatically in the wake of the upheavals to the political systems in the Soviet Union and other Eastern European countries. The record level was reached in 1990 when just under 400,000 persons (including family members) entered the country (Federal Office for Migration and Refugees 2011). An increasingly large proportion of these migrants was now originating from the Soviet Union or its successor states. "In the light of this development, resettler policy was modified on several occasions, and immigration to Germany was made more difficult, including for this group" (TREIBEL 2011, p. 36). Measures introduced included the stipulation of an annual quota and an obligation to demonstrate knowledge of the German language. Although the immigration of (late) resettlers remained at the relatively high overall level of more than 200,000 persons a year until the mid-1990's, it then decreased significantly. Arrivals from Poland and Rumania played only a very small role from 1993 onwards, and late resettlers were henceforth virtually exclusively from the successor states of the Soviet Union. Since 2006, the number of newly arrived late resettlers has been under 10,000 a year. The figure for 2009 was only 3,360 (Federal Office for Migration and Refugees 2011). Almost 4.5 million (late) resettlers including family members have migrated to Germany since 1950.

Although most (late) resettlers were in active employment in their countries of origin and had completed vocational education and training, the activities they exercised tended to be in simple manual occupations, in simple service occupations or in agricultural occupations (MIKA, HERING and HOCHFELLNER 2010). Lack of recognition in Germany of their vocational qualifications has often meant that highly qualified (late) resettlers have been unable to find jobs which correspond to their skills level. Whereas occupational integration progressed relatively successfully for resettlers arriving up until 1992, this no longer applies to later arrivals (MIKA, HERING and HOCHFELLNER 2010).

Many academic research findings over the past ten years have demonstrated that children and young people from migrant families experience considerable disadvantages in the German educational system from the outset (BAUMERT, STANAT and WATERMANN 2006, BECKER and REIMER 2010, DIEFENBACH 2008, Consortium of Educational Reporting 2006). Clear differences in general and language competences are exhibited from the very beginning of primary school, leading to the conclusion that migrant children are at a serious initial disadvantage (BIEDINGER and BECKER 2010). Until starting at school, children are mainly influenced by the (more or less beneficial) conditions which prevail within their parental home and by their family environment. Within this process, the cognitive development of children from a migrant background is adversely affected by the lower socio-economic status of their families (GRESCH and BECKER 2010). Attendance at nursery school, the benefits of which can assist in the breaking down of existing language barriers (BIEDINGER and BECKER 2010), remains less widespread in the case of children from families with a history of migration (Educational Reporting Authors' Group 2010). Since it is frequently not possible to develop important requisites for attendance at school to a sufficient level, children from migrant families are disproportionately likely to be deferred following the school entry medical examination and be subjected to a delay in starting school (Consortium of Educational Reporting 2006).

At the end of primary school, pupils from a migrant background score worse marks and do not perform as well in competence assessments. International primary school studies - the TIMSS 2007 project, which focused on competences in mathematics and sciences and the literacy skills study IGLU 2006 - showed that the influence exerted by social and ethnic origin on pupil performance in Germany is higher than in many other countries (BOS et al. 2007, BOS et al. 2008). This means that German schools are less successful than their international counterparts in compensating for the development and language disadvantages of migrant children by providing sufficient support. In Germany, one of the most important alignments in a child's educational biography occurs at the end of primary schooling when the form of further schooling is chosen (MAAZ et al. 2010). Primary schools are much less likely to recommend children from migrant families for intermediate or upper secondary school. The main reasons for this are the worse marks such pupils achieve and a lower estimation of their development potential. Although the educational recommendation made by primary schools regarding further schooling is highly binding in only a small number of federal states, it represents the decisive guidance factor for many parents, particularly for those of lower social status (MAAZ et al. 2010).

Alongside the generally discernable social class specific primary and secondary effects⁰⁷ of their origins, however, children from families with a history of migration also display certain positive effects of a migrant background at the transition from primary school to further schooling (GRESCH and BECKER 2010). Although migrant parents often have a low socio-economic status, they frequently display a high degree of educational aspiration and strive to achieve the highest possible school education for their children. Give comparable levels of school performance and comparable social status in the case of the families, children from a migrant background have a significantly higher chance of attending upper secondary school than children not from a migrant background.⁰⁸ Although this can be interpreted as a "positive secondary effect of the migrant background" (BAUMERT et al. 2010, p.10), it does not, however, alter the fact that the performance requirements of migrant children are considerably less likely to be sufficient for attendance at upper secondary school than is the case with children not from a migrant background. This means that there are significant differences in the school qualifications between children from a migrant background and children not from a migrant background at the end of general schooling and at the beginning of the transitional phase to vocational education and training.

In order to achieve successful and permanent integration into the labour market in Germany, it is essential to complete fully qualifying initial vocational education and training following the end of schooling. Because school leavers from a migrant background are disproportionately likely to have achieved no more than a lower secondary school leaving certificate, it is of particular significance to them to achieve access to company-based or dual training which provides training in accordance with the Vocational Training Act (BBiG) or the Crafts and Trades Regulation Code (HwO) due to the fact that other training pathways involving school-based training or higher education study usually require an intermediate or upper secondary school leaving certificate. It is, nevertheless, a well known fact that even transition to vocational education and training often proves to be extremely difficult for young migrants (BEICHT and GRANATO 2011, REIßIG, GAUPP and LEX 2008).

What are the reasons why young people of foreign origin have considerably lower access opportunities compared to young people not from a migrant background? Are their worse school qualifications the sole decisive factor in this regard? Or are different strategies adopted within the search and application process or a less favourable labour market situation in the regions where families with a history of migration reside possible additional causes? Are there any other differences in opportunity which are linked with the characteristic of "migrant background" and which may possibly indicate further disadvantages for these young people in the transitional process to vocational education and training? And are there differences between migrants from different regions of origin?

2

Box

What does "migrant background" mean?

The Federal Statistical Office defines persons from a migrant background as "all those who migrated to the present territory of the Federal Republic of Germany after 1949, all foreigners born in Germany and all persons born in Germany as Germans who have at least one parent who migrated to Germany or was born as a foreigner in Germany" (Federal Office for Migration and Refugees 2011, p. 215). This definition forms the basis of the surveys undertaken in the micro-census.

In order to ascertain whether a person is from a migrant background, a wealth of information is required both on him or her and on his or her parents. This data cannot be fully recorded in most statistics and surveys, and it is frequently necessary to restrict responses to a small number of pieces of information. For this reason, the construct "migrant background" is often operationalised in different ways. This is also the case with regard to the surveys conducted by BIBB, something which limits the comparability of results (SETTELMEYER and ERBE 2010).

In the 2010 Federal Employment Agency (BA) and the Federal Institute for Vocational Education and Training (BIBB) Applicant Survey, which forms the basis for the analyses of the chances of success of training place applicants, the presence of a migration background is defined in the following indirect terms. Applicants born in Germany who are in possession of German citizenship only and who have only learned German as their native language are considered to be Germans without a migrant background. All other persons are assumed to be from a migrant background. This means, however, that a migrant background cannot be identified in the case of young people who originate from a family with a history of migration despite having a German place of birth and German as their sole native language and possessing German citizenship only. The recording of the necessary information on the origins of the parents required for this purpose is not possible within the scope of the BA/BIBB Applicant Surveys.

Analyses using the database of the 2010 BA/BIBB Applicant Survey were conducted on these issues (see Box 3). The statistical population of this survey is approximately 552,000 and is formed by applicants registered with the Federal Employment Agency (BA) for the placement year 2009/2010. The particular characteristic of this statistical group is that it is made up of young people considered by the BA to be in possession of the necessary apprenticeship entry maturity and occupational aptitude for dual vocational education and training. The group of registered applicants includes both those who have progressed to dual training and those who have failed to find a training place and have gone on to pursue an alternative such as a partially qualifying training course or whose destination is unknown (cf. Figure 1). This falls far short, however, of encompassing all young people actually seeking to secure company-based training in the placement year, i.e. during the period from the beginning of October 2009 to the end of September 2010. Relatively large numbers of young people also searched for a training place without involving the employment agencies or job centres. In the placement year 2009/2010, around 292,000 young people succeeded in concluding a training contract for dual vocational education and training without the support of the BA.

This meant that the number of all young people recorded in the official statistics or in surveys as being interested in entering training, i.e. registered applicants and young people who found a company-based training place without being registered with the BA, amounted to some 844,000 persons.⁰⁹ Even this figure is, however, possibly an underestimate given the fact that the employment agencies and job centres only register young people whom they consider are in possession of the necessary prerequisites in order successfully to pursue training in the occupation to which they aspire. This means that young people categorised by the BA as not having sufficient apprenticeship entry maturity but who still remain in (unsuccessful) pursuit of a training place are not included.

3

Box

BA/BIBB Applicant Survey 2010

The BA/BIBB Applicant Survey is a written postal representative survey of young people and young adults who were registered with the Federal Employment Agency (BA) as training place applicants in the placement year 2009/2010 (Beicht and Eberhard 2011). In order to conduct the survey, the BA selected a sample of all applicants whose place of residence was in Germany. 13,000 randomly chosen persons received the questionnaire by post (gross sample). At the conclusion of the survey phase, which ran from the start of December 2010 until mid-February 2011, 4,621 questionnaires largely completed and capable of evaluation were available (net sample). This meant that the rate of return was 36%. The survey data was weighted via a target-actual adjustment in accordance with the characteristics of region of origin, gender and officially registered destination of the applicants and extrapolated to the statistical population of applicants residing in Germany.

This means that the statistical group of applicants is only a partial group of all young people interested in entering training and must not be confused with the demand side in the official training market figures as of the cut-off date of 30 September, which represent completely differently constituted partial group. In this case, only young people who have newly concluded a contract for dual training or who are officially registered as unplaced applicants are considered to be actively interested parties ("classical" definition of supply-demand).

Highly different arithmetic progression rates to vocational education and training this ensue depending upon which statistical group is considered - persons interested in entering training, actively interested parties included in the training market figures, applicants. If all persons recorded in official statistics as being interested in entering training are taken into account, this rate of progression is 66.3%. In relation to official "classical" demand, the rate of progression rises as high as 97.9% whereas the figure in respect of the extended definition is 86.9%.¹⁰ In the case of training place applicants registered with the BA, however, the rate is very low at only 48.5% due to the fact that all young people who have successfully progressed to dual training without the support of the BA are not taken into account.

What is the nature of the composition of the statistical group of applicants in the placement year 2009/2010? The results of the 2010 BA/BIBB Applicant Survey show that 26% have a migrant background. 73% are young people not from a migrant background. It was not possible to clarify migration status in the case of around 1% of applicants. These have not been included in the following analysis.

Of the applicants with a migrant background, over one third (36%) originate from Eastern European and CIS states¹¹ (cf. Figure 2). The assumption may be made that they or their families have in most cases migrated to the country as (late) resettlers.¹² An almost equally large proportion of 35% is of Turkish/Arabic origin. It is likely that the vast majority of migrants of Turkish origin are descendants of those who came to Germany from Turkey as "guest workers" in the 1960's and early 1970's. In the case of the smaller group of applicants who are of Arabic origin, it is likely that the parents of these young people came to Germany as refugee migrants (HAUG and STICHS 2011). 18% of applicants from a migrant background are of Southern European origin. In this case too, it is probable that the families of such applicants migrated to the country within the scope of guest worker recruitment. There is, however, also a smaller proportion of families who arrived in Germany at a later stage, especially as part of the work migration which is possible at any time on the basis of the freedom of movement within EU states or as part of refugee migration from the former Yugoslavia. The remaining 12% of applicants from a migrant background originate from other parts of the world, i.e. the countries of Northern and Central Europe, America, Australia, Africa and Asia (not including the Arabic states). Although these applicants make up the most heterogeneous group of migrants, they could not be further differentiated due to the fact that sample sizes are too low.

Overall, more than half of training place applicants (57%) originating from a family with a history of migration were born in Germany (cf. Figure 3). Over two thirds (69%) of applicants from a migrant background learned German as a native language. This largely took place in conjunction with the learning of the language of their country of origin, and it was less common for them to learn only German as a mother tongue. For just under one third, German is a language which has been learned later rather than as a native language. This is particularly likely to be true of young people from an Eastern European background (52%), most of whom were born outside Germany (78%) and much less likely to apply in the case of those from a Turkish-Arabic background (16%), the vast majority of whom were born in Germany (86%).

Almost two thirds (63%) of the young migrants are in possession of German citizenship. Most have a German passport only. Dual nationality tends to be less common. The remainder possesses foreign citizenship only. Over 90% of the young people of Eastern European origin are German citizens, due to the fact that most probably belong to the group of (late) resettlers who receive German citizenship upon entry to the country. By way of contrast, only around one third of applicants of South-East European origin and fewer than one half of those from a Turkish-Arabic background hold German citizenship.

At the end of general schooling, young women are more likely than young men to plan the commencement of full-time vocational school based training (BEICHT and GRANATO 2011). For this reason, applicants for company-based training include more young men than young women. This difference is somewhat less marked in applicants from a migrant background. Amongst those of Southern European origin, there are even slightly more young women than young men. Of applicants from families with a migrant background, one quarter had already reached the age of 20 at the end of 2010. The corresponding figure for those not from a migrant background was only 18%. Applicants of Eastern European origin are particularly likely to be aged over 20 (29%).

The differences in school qualifications between applicants from a migrant background and applicants not from a migrant background are relatively large, as Figure 4 makes clear. The basis here is the highest school qualification achieved at a general or vocational school by the end of the year 2010. This shows that young migrants are significantly less likely to be in possession of an intermediate or upper secondary school leaving certificate and are considerably more likely to have a lower secondary school leaving certificate, a certificate from a special school or no school leaving certificate at all (yet). Applicants from a Southern European background are most likely to be in possession of no more than a lower secondary school leaving certificate. Young people of Turkish-Arabic origin are the least likely to achieve a University of Applied Sciences or general higher education entrance qualification.

The school marks which applicants achieve on their final report also exhibit considerable deviations. Compared to young people not from a migrant background, young migrants are much less likely to score good or very good marks in German. By way of contrast, they are significantly more likely to have marks which are sufficient or worse. Although those from a migrant background also fare less well in mathematics, the differences in marks are smaller. The worst average marks in German are achieved by young people from a Turkish-Arabic background. The worst average marks in mathematics tend to be scored by those of Southern European origin or those from other states in the world. It is notable that applicants of Eastern European origin exhibit the best results in mathematics, even better than young people who are not from a migrant background. 

What actions do applicants undertake in order to obtain a company-based training place? As Figure 5 reveals, many young people, both from a migrant background and not (40% and 42% respectively), are prepared to take the initiative and enquire whether companies may offer training provision. On average, young migrants contact an even greater number of companies than young people not from a migrant background (35 as opposed to 31 companies).

Most training place applicants send written applications to companies. Although the proportion of young people from families with a migrant background who send such applications is somewhat lower than in the case of those not from a migrant background (75% as opposed to 83%),  the former send significantly more applications out on average than the latter (45 and 37 applications respectively). The highest average number of applications sent out is by young people of Turkish-Arabic origin at 53.

More than half of applicants from a migrant background and not from a migrant background (53% and 57% respectively) apply for training places in more than one occupation. Young migrants consider an even higher number of occupations than those not from a migrant background (an average of 8 occupations as opposed to 6). A smaller proportion of applicants from a migrant background and not from a migrant background (15% and 16% respectively) displays a high degree of regional flexibility and applies for training places in companies which are more than 100 km away from their place of residence. Some also place their own training place wanted notice in a newspaper or on the Internet. Young people from a migrant background are slightly more likely to avail themselves of this opportunity than those not from a migrant background (11% as opposed to 8%).

Despite extremely extensive efforts, young people with a history of migration are considerably less likely to be invited by companies to attend an interview. Whereas just over three fifths of applicants not from a migrant background are afforded the opportunity of a personal interview at a company, the same is true for only half of young migrants. The proportions for young people from a Turkish-Arabic background and for those who originate from other countries are even lower (46% and 44% respectively). Notwithstanding this, there is virtually no difference between the various statistical groups with regard to the average number of interviews attended, which is just under six.

Over half of applicants complete company internships during the course of the search and application process. There is no difference between young people with and without a migrant background in this respect (the figure being 54% in each case). The average number of internships, which is just under four, is also the same.

In addition to this, applicants from a migrant background and not from a migrant background undertake a similar scope of diverse other activities in order to find a training place. They conduct research in the job exchanges available online and make enquiries to chambers or associations as well as asking relatives, acquaintances and friends for help and trying to use their connections (cf. Figure 5). Young people of Eastern European and Turkish-Arabic origin are somewhat less likely than the other groups to benefit from connections. This may be due to the fact that they are less likely to have promising contacts.

There is, however, a considerable difference with regard to the involvement of parents in the career choice and training place search process. Whereas over half of migrants not from a migrant background (52%) discuss all important issues with their parents, only 29% of young migrants do so. The corresponding figures for young people of Turkish-Arabic and Eastern European origin are only 26% and 27% respectively.

Only a small proportion of applicants from a migrant background and not from a migrant background receives support from a training entry support worker, mentor or guide during the career choice and training place search process (8% in each case).¹³ Applicants from a Southern European background or originating from another country are slightly more likely to be supported by a mentor (10% in the case of each group), whereas young people from a Turkish-Arabic background are less likely to enjoy such support (the figure here being 6%).

Young migrants are more likely than those not from a migrant background to have applied for a training place (without success) prior to the placement year 2009/2010 (42% as opposed to 36%). They are also considerably more likely to have completed a prevocational training year, a career entry year or a vocational orientation year (15% as compared to 10%) in order to increase their chances of finding a training place.¹⁴

The endeavours undertaken by applicants in the placement year 2009/2010 to obtain a training place were very extensive in many cases. How have these paid off? By the end of 2010/start of 2011 - i.e. by the end of the post-placement phase - 42% of young people not from a migrant background had progressed to company-based training. The corresponding figure for young people from families with a migrant background is, however, only 28%.

Progression rates also differ significantly between the various migrant groups. Although young people of Eastern Euroepan or Southern European origin are somewhat more likely to succeed in entering company-based training, the figures here being 34% and 33% respectively, the figure for young people with a Turkish-Arabic background is only 20%.¹⁵

Progression rates to company-based training usually increase in line with higher school qualifications obtained. As Figure 6 makes clear, however, the differences displayed in connection with school qualifications are by no means the same for young people with and without a migrant background. It is particularly noticeable that the proportion of successful transitions made by migrants in possession of an intermediate school leaving certificate (29%) as compared to those with no more than a lower secondary school leaving certificate (24%) are much lower than is the case for young people not from a migrant background (where the corresponding figures are 48% and 28%).

For applicants from a Turkish-Arabic background, there is absolutely no discernable advantage in terms of achieving a successful progression in having an intermediate school leaving certificate as opposed to a lower secondary school leaving certificate. Rates of progression are very low in both cases at just under 20% compared to those without a migrant background as well as to those from other groups of origin. Even when young people of Turkish-Arabic origin are able to demonstrate a University of Applied Sciences or general higher education entrance qualification, prospects of a company-based training place remain extremely poor (26%).

Young people of Eastern European origin, on the other hand, succeed in progressing to company-based training with (approximately) the same frequency as the comparison group not from a migrant background (29% as opposed to 28%). The progression rate for such young people, however, also rises only slightly - by 6 percentage points to 35% - if they are in possession of an intermediate school leaving certificate. This is considerably lower than the corresponding increase for applicants not from a migrant background, who display a rise of 20 percentage points to 48%. The differences only become narrower again when both groups are in possession of a higher school qualification (49% and 54% respectively).

Applicants from a Southern European background display the largest deviations according to school qualification achieved. Whereas such young people are comparatively unlikely to make a successful transition to company-based training if they are in possession of a lower secondary school leaving certificate only (22%), their prospects for success increase considerably if they hold an intermediate school leaving certificate (40%). If they possess a University of Applied Sciences or general higher education entrance qualification, their progression rate is, at 59%, even the highest of all the comparison groups.

Extra-company training in occupations governed by the Vocational Training Act (BBiG) and the Crafts and Trades Regulation Code (HwO) goes some way towards creating compensation for a lack of company-based training places, the idea being that lower ability young people should predominantly benefit.¹⁶ If this form of training is included, transition rates to dual vocational education and training for applicants from a migrant background and not from a migrant background increase to 34% and 48% respectively, although the gap between the two groups remains at the same high level.

In particular, extra-company training increases the proportion of successful progressions to dual training for applicants who are in possession of no more than a lower secondary school leaving certificate. The effect of this for young migrants with a lower secondary school leaving certificate is that their prospects of a training place in BBiG/HwO occupations are actually higher than if they had an intermediate secondary school leaving certificate. This is true for all migrant groups with the exception of young people of Southern European origin. Applicants of Turkish-Arabic origin are the group which profits the least from extra-company training when in possession of no more than a lower secondary school leaving certificate. Whereas their progression rate rises by only 7 percentage points, the corresponding comparative increase for young people without a history of migration and for young people of Eastern or Southern European origin is 13 percentage points in each case.

There is a whole series of existing empirical studies coming to the conclusion that there is a very strong correlation between school qualification and school marks achieved and young people's successful progression to company-based training (BEICHT, FRIEDRICH and ULRICH 2008, DIEHL, FRIEDRICH and HALL 2009, EBERHARD and ULRICH 2011, SEEBER 2011). One explanation for this comes in the form of the signal theory, which suggests that, in the human resources recruitment process, companies are faced with uncertainty with regard to the actual learning and performance potential and future productivity of persons applying (SOLGA 2005). For this reason, they take recourse in easily accessible and reliable indicators which facilitate probability assumptions in this regard. When filling training places, companies mainly see school education certificates as providing a signal of learning and performance ability. With the help of these certificates, they are able to define groups of young people to whom they can ascribe high, average or low levels of probable potential.

In order to find the person best suited to the training place to be filled, companies use the labour queue approach (THUROW 1975) to sort application candidates into an order in line with anticipated learning and performance capability. The better these candidates are positioned in relation to other candidates, the more favourable their position in the queue. A young person categorised as not sufficiently capable of learning will not be placed in the queue due to the fact that, even in the absence of other interested parties, companies are not prepared to bear the costs of expensive vocational education and training.

The position which a young person can achieve in the queue is crucially dependent on his or her relative (anticipated) performance capability compared to the other candidates (SOLGA 2005). The likelihood of a favourable placement is higher if demand for the training place is low, i.e. if the queue is short. This means that even candidates who do not ideally fulfil the requirements of the company will have good prospects in such circumstances. Chances are, however, fewer the higher the over-supply of interested parties. This indicates the significance of the position on the training market. Compared to the past decade, the training market in Germany is now characterised by a slight easing as well as by continuing strong regional disparities. There are regions where the supply situation is favourable as well as others which have a considerable surplus of applicants. This means that, alongside school qualification, the situation on the regional training market also always exerts strong effects on individual young people's chances of finding a training place.

There are, however, further factors which affect successful progression to company-based or dual training, as existing empirical studies have already shown (BEICHT, FRIEDRICH and ULRICH 2008, BEICHT and GRANATO 2010, DIEHL, FRIEDRICH and HALL 2009, EBERHARD and ULRICH 2011, REIßIG, GAUPP and LEX 2008, SEEBER 2011, SEIBERT, HUPKA-BRUNNER and IMDORF 2009).¹⁷ Personal characteristics such as gender, age and migration background play a role¹⁸ , whereas characteristics of the search and application process are also of relevance.

What influence do all these factors have on the transition of applicants to company-based or dual training? Are the chances of young migrants still lower than those of young people not from a migrant background even if all these characteristics are taken into account? And what is the nature of the opportunities for progression enjoyed by various groups of origin? In order to investigate these issues, multivariate analyses (binary logistic regressions) were conducted (see Box 4).

4

Box

Explanations of the logistic regression models

Logistic regression models provide a vehicle for determining the independent effect of each individual characteristic on the opportunities for progression to company-based or dual training due to the fact that all other values included are respectively controlled. The models extended beyond school qualification and school marks to accord consideration to the strategies applied in the search and application process, the support received in this regard and the personal characteristics of gender, age and migration status. An indicator for the situation on the training places market in the region of residence of the applicants was also included in the form of the "proportion of (company-based) training places in relation to those interested in entering training".

Separate models were calculated for progression to company-based training (Models 1a, 1b, 1c) and for progression to company-based or extra-company training (Models 2a, 2b, 2c) (cf. Figure 7). With regard to migration status, the models include a dichotomous variable (with/without migrant background) (Models 1a and 2a) and a variable differentiated according to regions of origin (Models 1b/1c and 2b/2c). As already shown in the bivariate analyses, the transition rates to dual training vary considerably depending on the school qualification and region of origin of the applicants. For this reason, two additional models have been included to take the interaction between these two cause variables, i.e. an interaction term "school qualification * migration status (region of origin)" (1c and 2c).

The following provides a summary of the most important results of the present analyses regarding progression to company-based training.

• It can be confirmed that the school qualification of the training place applicants exerts a very large influence. If the other influencing factors are controlled, for example, an intermediate and higher secondary school leaving certificate are not the only factors which bring about a considerable increase in chances of a successful transition compared to the maximum of a lower secondary school leaving certificate. Irrespective of the school leaving certificate achieved, good or satisfactory school marks in German and mathematics exert an extremely positive impact compared with marks which are sufficient or worse.
• As far as the search and application process is concerned, written applications in more than one occupation increase the chances of progression significantly. Transition is also supported if young people discuss all important issues during the career selection and training search process with their parents. The prior completion of company-based introductory training also produces positive effects.
• Supra-regional applications, which unsuccessful training place applicants are often advised to undertake do not, on the other hand, appear to pay off. Although this may initially be surprising, there is probably a correlation with the fact that young people often continue to redouble their efforts in the case of a difficult search process.¹⁹ They are then more likely to apply to companies situated far away from their place of residence, something which they would not need to do if chances on the regional training market were high, and yet frequently remain unsuccessful.

A search and application process which has already been ongoing for some considerable time also produces negative effects, as is made clear by the lesser chances of repeat applicants who have already tried to secure a training place in previous placement years.

• The situation on the regional training markets has a considerable effect. If the situation in this regard is very favourable, with a ratio of 80% and more of young people interested in entering training to company-based training places, chances of progression to company-based training are three times higher than is the case if the training market situation is poor (ratio of under 50%).
• With regard to personal characteristics, young men display significantly better opportunities for transition than young women. Applicants who are aged over 20 and therefore slightly older have lesser chances of success compared to younger applicants.

If all these cause variables are controlled, a significant effect remains for the characteristic of "Migration status" if this is taken into account as a dichotomous variable (with/without migration background) in the regression model (cf. Model 1a). This indicates that, in overall terms, applicants from families with a history of migration have worse chances of obtaining a company-based training place than young people not from a migrant background even if all other prerequisites are equal. If, on the other hand, the various groups of origin are considered separately, although worse chances are displayed for all groups, these can only be statistically confirmed for young people of Turkish-Arabic origin (cf. Model 1b). If the interaction term "School qualification * Migration status (Region of origin)" is included, it becomes clear that an intermediate secondary school leaving certificate provides a significantly less beneficial to applicants from an Eastern European and Turkish-Arabic background in terms of access to company-based training than is the case with young people not from a migrant background (cf. Model 1c).

Relatively little changes in terms of the overall results if the regression models take account of transition to extra-company training in BBiG/HwO occupations as well as including progression to company-based (cf. Models 2a bis 2c). Many (both positive and negative) effects weaken somewhat, the reason for this being that extra-company training has completely different access requirements, meaning that other characteristics such as a lower secondary school leaving certificate and worse marks exert a beneficial effect (ULRICH 2011). Support from a career entry support worker and the completion of a prevocational training year are now shown to have a significantly positive influence.

The most important result is, however, that there is no improvement to the transitional opportunities of applicants from a migrant background compared to those not from a migration background if extra-company training is taken into account. This means that extra-company training does not provide young people from a migrant background with any compensation for the worse chances they have of gaining access to company-based training even given the same prerequisites. This is particularly true of young people of Turkish-Arabic origin.

As the regression models show, the chances of progression to company-based training diverge considerably depending on the characteristics of the applicants. Although these differences in opportunity do not provide any information as to how high the probability is of a successful search for a training place for young people with certain individual characteristics, this can be calculated from the coefficients of a regression model. Taking a fictitious initial case as the starting point, the aim of the following is to indicate how strongly the probabilities of success increase or decrease if individual characteristics are changed.

As Figure 8 shows, the probability of transition to company-based training for the fictitious initial case of a male applicant without a migrant background, with a lower secondary school leaving certificate, satisfactory marks in German and mathematics and various other stipulated characteristics is calculated to be 36%. If the young man in question were to be in possession of an intermediate secondary school leaving certificate instead, the probability would rise to 56% and would increase to as high as 68% if he were to have achieved a University of Applied Sciences or general higher education entrance qualification. If, however, the lower secondary school leaving certificate were to be accompanied by marks which are only sufficient or worse, the probability of success would fall to 20%.

What would the nature of the changes be if the male applicant were to be of Turkish-Arabic origin? If conditions otherwise remained the same as in the initial case, the probability of progression to company-based training by such a young man would be 29%. An intermediate secondary school leaving certificate would bring no benefit. A higher school leaving qualification would be required to bring the probability of success up to 47%. The place where the young person lives and how good the situation on the training market is are also crucial factors. If he lives in a region where the situation is very favourable, the likelihood of finding a company-based training place is comparatively higher (55%). If the situation were to be very bad, however, the prospect of success falls to only 22%. Direct comparison between a male applicant without a migrant background and one of Turkish-Arabic origin makes it clear just how much lower the prospects of success are for those from a Turkish-Arabic background. The greatest differences are to be found in the case of an intermediate secondary school leaving certificate. The chances for those not from a migrant background in this case are 56%, 27 percentage points higher than the corresponding applicant from a Turkish-Arabic background.

What has become of the applicants from the 2009/2010 placement year in overall terms? Figure 9 provides information on the training courses or other activities pursued at the end of the year 2010. At this point, 30% of young people from a migrant background and 44% of young people not from a migrant background were undergoing training in a company. These proportions are slightly higher than the rates for progression to company-based training. The reason for this is that some young people make a new application whilst being involved in an existing training contract and then decide to remain in their original training.²⁰

In overall terms, applicants from a migrant background and applicants not from a migrant background are equally likely to end up in extra-company training in a BBiG/HwO occupation (8% in each case). A smaller proportion of young people from a migrant background and not from a migrant background are in training in a school-based occupation or are pursuing a course of study at an institute of higher education/University of Applied Sciences (6% and 7% respectively). In overall terms, applicants from a migrant family are considerably less likely to progress to a fully qualifying form of training (including higher education study) than those not from a migrant background (43% as opposed to 59%). The lowest proportion of 34% is found amongst young people of Turkish-Arabic origin.

At the end of 2010, the remaining applicants are continuing in general schooling, are attending a partially qualifying vocational school (including specialised upper secondary school) or another partially qualifying course of education or training, are fulfilling military, civilian or voluntary service or else are either in employment or unemployed. Compared to applicants not from a migrant background, applicants from a migrant background are more likely to be pursuing one of the alternative forms of training (32% as opposed to 23%) and are also more likely to be outside the educational system (23% compared to 17%). A particularly high proportion is in employment or casual work (11% and 6% respectively). Young people from a Turkish-Arabic background or from the "Other states" group of origin are disproportionately likely to be unemployed (13% in each case).

How do the applicants evaluate their situation at the end of 2010? As is to be expected, the proportion of young people whose situation fully reflects their original ideas tends to be small, as Figure 10 shows. Only just under half (48%) of all young migrants state that their destination is in line with their wishes or at least constitutes an alternative which they also considered beforehand. This is significantly more likely to be the case for young people not from a migrant background (60%). Some of the remaining applicants have come to terms with a situation which they did not actually seek to achieve and now evaluate their destination as quite good or at least as a sensible bridge (from a migrant background 28%, not from a migrant background 23%). The remaining applicants express a relatively high level of dissatisfaction, categorising their destination as an "emergency solution" or even as a "dead end". This is true for as many as just over one in five migrants, the corresponding figure for those of Turkish-Arabic origin even reaching one quarter. The proportion for young people not from a migrant background is 16%.

There is a strong correlation between these evaluations and whether applicants were able to achieve the commencement of company-based or extra-company training in BBiG/HwO occupations or not. If this is the case, applicants virtually always (tend to) evaluate their situation positively (from a migrant background 94%, not from a migrant background 96%).²¹ The reason why the evaluations differ according to migrant group is therefore the fact that these groups have different likelihoods of progressing to dual training.

Most young people either from a migrant background or not from a migrant background endeavour to enter company-based training as they progress from school to the world of work. In formal terms, no particular school qualification needs to be demonstrated in order to embark upon this route. Notwithstanding this, young people wishing to receive support from the Federal Employment Agencies or job centres in their search for a training place are required to display "apprenticeship entry maturity" and to show that they fulfil the requirements for training in the occupation to which they aspire. Only then are they officially considered to be "training place applicants". Companies providing training subsequently also operate a strict selection process for the filling of their training places. In order to achieve success within this process, the highest possible school qualification and good marks are usually of considerable benefit, since these signal performance ability and motivation to the companies. Compared to their counterparts who are not from a migrant background, however, applicants from a migrant background are much more likely to be in possession of no more than a lower secondary school leaving certificate and to have worse marks for German and mathematics on their school reports. Over the past ten years, academic research findings emerging from international school performance tests have repeatedly shown that children from families with a history of migration are at a disadvantage in the German school system from the very outset, especially by reason of their less favourable social origin, and that German schools do not succeed in affording these children sufficient support. For this reason, the initial conditions for young migrants are significantly less favourable at the transition to vocational education and training (HILLMERT 2010).

Training place applicants from a migrant background are a very heterogeneous group of young people. A third originate from countries in Eastern Europe and from the CIS states. These migrants or their families mostly arrived in Germany as (late) resettlers from the end of the 1980's. An almost equally large proportion of applicants is from a Turkish-Arabic background, whereby the majority is of Turkish origin. These are mostly the descendants of Turkish "guest workers" who migrated to Germany between the 1960's and early 1970's. The group of applicants of Southern European origin, who also often come from former guest worker families, is approximately half as large. The remaining applicants from a migrant background have emigrated to Germany from other countries. Applicants of Southern European and Turkish-Arabic origin fare the worst in terms of school qualifications achieved.

Applicants from a migrant background and not from a migrant background both undertake diverse activities in order to find a company-based training place. The commitment displayed by young migrants within this process is often particularly high. Notwithstanding this, they are considerably less likely than young people not from a migrant background to be successful within the search and application process (success rates being 28% and 42% respectively). For those from a Turkish-Arabic background, the rate of transition to company-based training is as low as 20%. The proportion of successful progressions generally rises in line with the level of school qualification achieved. For young people from a Turkish-Arabic background, however, this is not the case. Possession of an intermediate secondary school leaving certificate does not means that they are more likely to progress to company-based training than if they have achieved only a lower secondary school leaving certificate. They are considerably less likely than the comparison groups to progress to company-based training even if they hold a University of Applied Sciences or general higher education entrance qualification.

Extra-company training in occupations governed by the Vocational Training Act (BBiG) and the Crafts and Trades Regulation Code (HwO) increases the rates of transition to dual vocational education and training. Extra-company training is of particular benefit to young people who have achieved no more than a lower secondary school leaving certificate. In the case of applicants from a migrant background, the proportion of successful transitions to dual VET is, therefore, higher in the case of a lower secondary school leaving certificate than in the case of an intermediate secondary school leaving certificate. Notwithstanding this, the large difference between young people from a migrant background and young people not from a migrant background remains (34% as opposed to 48%). The rate of transition to dual training is particularly low for those from a Turkish-Arabic background (25%).

Although in overall terms the worse school qualifications and school marks achieved by young migrants clearly exert a negative effect on their successful progression to dual vocational education and training, they do not constitute a sufficient explanation for their considerably lower chances of securing a training place. Even with equal school qualifications, the prospects for applicants from a migrant background remain significantly worse than those of young people not from a migrant background.

Deviations in search and application strategies shown to be detrimental to the transitional process are not the cause of the lower access opportunities to company-based training for applicants from migrant families. Other studies have already demonstrated that such differences cannot be (BEICHT and GRANATO 2011, DIEHL, FRIEDRICH and HALL 2009, REIßIG, GAUPP and LEX 2008). The explanatory approach that young migrants are more likely to live in urban conglomerations in West Germany where the training place situation is worse than in other reasons (EBERHARD and ULRICH 2011) can only partially be sustained. This becomes clear if the ratio of company-based training provision to young people interested in entering training is used as a yardstick for the situation on the regional training market. In the placement year 2009/2010, no overall difference in distribution across regions with a favourable or unfavourable ratio was revealed between applicants from a migrant background and applicants not from a migrant background.²² Although the market situation exerts a considerable on chances of access to company-based training, this does not explain the lesser prospects of success of young migrants.

The ultimate reasons for the lower chances of progression to dual training by young people from a migrant background, something which is clearly also revealed when significant cause variables are controlled, cannot be clarified on the basis of the analyses conducted using the database of the BA/BIBB Applicant Survey. As other investigations show, social origin (i.e. the school and vocational qualifications of parents, the occupational status of the father and the network resources of young people) cannot finally explain the lower opportunities of young migrants (BEICHT and GRANATO 2010, HUPKA-BRUNNER et al. 2011)²³

The reasons for the considerably greater difficulty of access to company-based training which young people with a history of migration experience compared to those not from a migrant background, even when prerequisites are otherwise equal, are likely to have their main origins in the selection processes used by companies to assign their training places, and this is indeed indicated by other existing studies. There is a prevailing uncertainty at the companies regarding both the learning and performance potential of the application candidates as well as in respect of other desired characteristics such as reliability or "fitting in" with the company workforce. In order to reduce this uncertainty, companies act in accordance with signal theory and the labour queue approach in taking recourse in both school qualifications and ascriptive characteristics such as migration status or foreigner status and take these aspects into account in sorting candidates into the queue (BECKER 2011). A low school qualification, for example, is associated with "a lower level of motivation, performance, resilience or reliability" (ibid. p. 26), and such characteristics are then ascribed to the whole of the group of young people from a migrant background in accordance with the logic of statistical discrimination due to the fact that such young people are considerably more likely to be in possession of a low level school qualification compared to their counterparts not from a migrant background. This could also explain the fact that an intermediate secondary school leaving certificate achieved by young migrants is less "recognised" and exerts a far less positive effect on transitional chances. The results of a Swiss study also support the signal theory effect of a migration background in company selection of trainees. The purpose of the majority of arguments and ascriptions used by the companies forming the object of the investigation, especially the deficits in language knowledge often imputed, is to "legitimise the exclusion of applicants considered to be foreign" (IMDORF 2008, p. 2035).

In addition to this, companies often also assume that there will be greater risks in training in the case of young people from a migrant background, as studies from the 1990's show (BOOS-NÜNNING 2008). Particularly young people of Turkish origin are imputed to have insufficient knowledge of German (company) culture due to the fact that they and their families are not integrated into German social networks. "In addition, belonging to another culture also leads to the expectation of specific difficulties" (ibid. p. 266). Some companies also express the fear that trainees of foreign origin, particularly those from a Turkish background, will not be accepted by customers (SCHAUB 1991). This is also indicated in a current study. Human resources managers ascribe a lack of language knowledge and skills to young males of Turkish origin and fear negative customer reactions if such young people are recruited (JANßEN and POLAT 2005, pp. 196 ff.). Service companies which have customer contact thus have "the strongest reservations and discriminatory practices" with regard to the recruitment of young people of second generation Turkish origin (ibid. p. 196). If such attitudes amongst human resources managers were to be widespread in Germany, this could represent an explanation for the particularly low chances of access to vocational education and training of young peop0le from a Turkish-Arabic background.

Further research is required into the reasons which lead to disadvantages for young people with a history of migration in making the transition to vocational education and training. Selection processes used for the assigning of training places should in particular be subjected to differentiated investigation in order to ascertain the extent to which the decision-making logical processes used by human resources managers actually influence the selection procedure to the detriment of young people from a migrant background or of certain groups of origin. A response to this issue is urgently required in order to be able to counter the "structural disadvantage" (Expert Council of German Foundations on Integration and Migration, SVR, 2010, p. 164) of young people from a migrant background at the threshold to vocational education and training. There can be no assumption that these problems will completely resolve themselves in the wake of a further improvement to the training market situation. It is, however, surely incontestable that well-founded vocational education and training needs to be facilitated for all young people and young adults living in Germany. This is an indispensable foundation for a successful positioning on the labour market and something which is, in turn, considered to be one of the most important prerequisites for the integration of young people in overall societal terms.