A Comparison of Vocational Training Systems: California, Germany and Japan - Essay Example

A Comparison of Vocational Training Systems: California, Germany and Japan This paper compares the career and technical vocational systems of the State of California with those of two advanced economies in the world, that of Germany and Japan. The first part cites the basic characteristics of a career and vocational system and identifies the main similarities among the various vocational systems in the world. The second part looks at specific differences among the systems compared and identifies unique characteristics according to each country’s culture and political systems. The third part summarizes the similarities and differences using a table format. A Comparison of Vocational Training Systems: California, Germany and Japan Overview of the Paper The technical vocational system is a portion of every country’s educational system that has as its objective to prepare young men and women for gainful employment (Rauner, 1998, pp. 237-240). Every state that wants its people to have a comfortable quality of life has as one of its political objectives that of making sure that every citizen can work and be paid well for it. Thus, government establishes an educational system that prepares each citizen for work. Vocational training, the focus of this paper, is just one aspect of the total system, with many similarities and differences. California, as do the other 49 federal states, Germany and Japan, three of the most advanced economies in the world, have their own vocational systems, similar in many aspects but unique in some. This paper discusses what these are in terms of the following issues: objectives, cultural foundations, age requirements, sequencing, duration, funding, scope, legal framework, and linkages between educational and employment systems (Table 1 is a summary). Similarities of Vocational Training Systems Vocational Training Systems are similar in at least three aspects: the objective to prepare the student for employment, each system is grounded on the social, economic and cultural character of each state or nation, and clear legal foundations for the system. In order to prepare for employment, the system considers employment opportunities available, skills and knowledge needed that fit employment opportunities, and minimum age required for employment. As Gil and Dar (2000) argued in their comprehensive study of vocational training systems, taking these into account would result in a match between vocational training and employment. For example, if the minimum legal age requirement for employment is 18 years and training programs take two years, students must be above age 16. Otherwise, the graduate cannot be employed and would waste the time after training. Therefore, most vocational systems begin at the post-secondary education stage since general educational systems aim to give the young the minimum set of standard knowledge and skills in mathematics, language and communication, civic awareness, and sciences so that they would have an idea of what career they want and could be trained for these careers. The training system’s legal provisions cover these and other points. Another similarity is that vocational systems have to consider the social, economic and cultural foundations. If a country is moving towards industrialization, the system prepare for industrial jobs. The system also builds on the people’s social character, so its training system equips its people with the appropriate habits and skills according to their culture, adapting the curriculum to the people’s attitudes towards work, be it manual, creative, artistic or intellectual. Differences of Vocational Training Systems Vocational Training Systems have differences in other major aspects, such as funding or state support, linkages with the employers, and in the duration and training methods used. There are also differences in curriculum content, teachers’ qualifications, linkages with the university education system, quality of facilities, etc. but these are not included in this short paper. California A white paper (Feinberg, 2003, pp. 3-5) released by the Governor’s Office in 2003 showed that California’s Workforce Development System is a $4.6 billion industry consisting of 34 job-training programs administered by 14 different State entities whose objective is “to educate, train and employ the state’s workforce.” The system, which had its beginning in the early 20th century, is linked to economic development and includes providing incumbent workers with the necessary skills for ongoing career development. The system includes a wide range of programs such as vocational and adult education in community colleges and secondary schools, employment services for special populations such as aging workers, those in rehabilitation, laid off workers who need retraining, etc., and core services for workers who need upgrading in their skills and apprenticeship training programs in cooperation with employers. The biggest portion of the funds, at $2.7 billion, are spent on the second group, employment services for special populations, while $1.7 billion are spent on the first group, vocational and adult education. The budget allocation shows that the state is the majority funder of the system, which trains workers from the ages 17 to 60. The system includes public educational entities, employment and training agencies, worker protection and social service programs, organized labor groups, in-house business and industry training, private post-secondary institutions and community-based and non-profit organizations (Feinberg, 2003, p. 5). Germany Germany is known for its predominantly state-funded and industry-linked dual training system, which is an apprenticeship system that lasts two to three years. Rütters (2007, pp. 3-4) showed yearly budgets of €19 billion ($30 billion) to train 4.1 million workers in government vocational schools and in public/private firms where apprentices go four days a week for skills training and workplace orientation. There are also vocational schools where students undergo full-time in-school training but these comprise only 17% of the total students in the system. The German vocational training system has operated since the 17th century in cooperation with the labor unions and guilds, Chambers of Trade and Commerce, and several government ministries that design the regulations, employment qualifications, and training standards. Germany has a government ministry, the BiBB or the German Ministry for Vocational Training, which has the main job of coordinating the career and vocational training system in the country. Japan The vocational training system in Japan begins with technology education at all schools at the lower secondary level, gijutsu ka, and extends to vocational technical education at the upper secondary and post-secondary levels, shokugyo kyoiku, part of an educational system that was developed by the American occupiers after the war and that was patterned after the American system (Murata and Stern, 1993, p. 29). Unlike America, however, vocational training in Japan is predominantly public-funded and has very close ties with the employment sector for funding, curriculum development and on-the-job experience content (Murata and Stern, 1993, p. 30). Over the last sixty years, the vocational training system has adapted to the different stages of Japan’s economic development, offering advanced training courses following training programs developed very closely with industry. In order to deliver the skills needed by the economy, there is a nationwide network of government vocational schools, technology colleges, educational centers for technology education in each of Japan’s 47 prefectures or provinces, and in-company training centers. Terada (1998, pp. 14-15) enumerated that Japan’s vocational training system has similar challenges to those faced by other developed nations, such as lack of funding (the country has been in an economic crisis since the early 1990s), lack of teachers (despite incentives, most technology workers prefer to work in industry where the pay is higher), lack of students (Japan’s population has been dwindling in the last three decades), industries moving out of Japan to low-cost production sites in developing countries, mostly in Asia and China, and the cultural bias for engineering education to the detriment of vocational training for factory jobs. Table 1: Comparison of the Vocational Training Systems of California, Germany and Japan California Germany Japan Duration and Age Range 6 months to Three Years Ages 17-60 Two to Three Years Starts at age 17 up to 20. Many on-the-job upgrading courses Two to Three Years Starts at Age 13 and up to 55 for skills upgrading on-the-job Where Training Takes Place 34 different entities are involved, ranging from community colleges to non-profits, job training centers, training centers for special workers, etc. Vocational Schools funded by the Government provide Theoretical and Work Values Training. In-Company training centers provide theoretical training and on-the-job work experience. Each Prefecture or Province has a National Vocational Training Center funded by Government. Most companies have in-house training centers. Predominant Characteristic Publicly-funded training initiatives combined with Private Company Training. Diversity in training programs available allow market forces and economies of scale German Dual Training or Apprenticeship System combines Theory in Vocational Schools and Practice on-the-job. Very Close cooperation with Labor Unions Public Vocational Schools and On-the-Job Training Centers owned and operated by Employers. Unions are also involved in training content and regulations. Funding Source Predominantly Public but with strong private component. Majority funded by Government with some assistance from Chambers of Commerce and Trade Predominantly public funding for vocational training. Companies also contribute but not as much as public sector through subsidies and budgets. Legal Basis Various state regulations available for training programs and incentives Vocational Training Act that established the Federal Ministry for Vocational Training. Several Laws since 1946 in coordination with the Ministry of Education Scope Wide variety of skills training available for different student markets, including minorities, aging workers, disabled and marginalized. Wide variety of skills training available, even for gasoline attendants, bakers and painters (minimum of two years of dual training) Mostly technical in nature but diversifying into multiple skills needed in industry. Low population means immigrant workers needed. References: Feinberg (2003), Gill and Dar (2000), Murata (1993), Rauner (1998), Rütters (2007), Terada (1998). Reference List Feinberg, Todd (2003). California’s Workforce Development System: How to Prepare the System for Sustainable Development to Meet the Needs of California’s Evolving Economy. Sacramento: Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, October 2003. Gill, Indermit S. and Amit Dar (2000). “Germany.” In Gill, Indermit S., Fred Fluitman and Amit Dar (Eds.), Vocational Education and Training Reform: Matching Skills to Markets and Budgets. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Murata, Shoji and Sam Stern (1993). “Technology Education in Japan.” Journal of Technology Education, 5 (1): 29-37. Rauner, Felix (1998). “School-to-Work Transition: The Example of Germany.” In Stern, David and Daniel A. Wagner (Eds.), International Perspectives on the School-to-Work Transition. Cresskill, N.J.: Hampton Press, pp. 237-271. Rütters, Dr. Klaus (2007). “German Dual Training System.” Paper submitted during the 34th European Universities Continuing Education Network Conference, Hannover, Germany, 29 November – 1 December 2007. Terada, Moriki (1998). “Some Comparative Models and Their Criteria of Vocational Education System: A Conception Based on Comparisons between Germany and Japan by German Scientists of Vocational Education.” Science in Vocational Education, 11: 1-16. Read More