The German Dual System: A Heretical View

Abstract

The German dual system of apprentice training has attracted international attention by virtue of the quality of its organisation, the resources devoted to it, and the results obtained. With the aim of at least providing food for thought, and perhaps stirring policy-makers into action, a number of recent English language studies have documented it with vigour and clarity (Prais & Wagner, 1983, and Hayes, Anderson & Fonda, 1984, have been especially influential). In the process, however, they have projected a somewhat stylised image of the model. The purpose here is not so much to question the thrust of these studies as to bring into clearer focus some features of the system which are crucial to an understanding of its role in the preparation of young people for employment and which have not received the attention they deserve. The conventional description of the dual system is puzzling in two respects. First there is its comprehensiveness. It is effectively obligatory for all except the collegebound Gymnasium students to enter it on leaving school, and typically they do so for three or three and a half years. (In practice a shortage of training places has prevented a proportion of school-leavers from gaining immediate entry and programmes have been developed within formal education to accommodate the back-log.) The minimum length of an apprenticeship, for the lowest grade of shopworker, is two years. And yet studies in other countries have concluded that only a small minority of the labour force requires extended occupational training. For example, the United States National Longitudinal Survey of the High School Class of 1972 revealed that 87% of high school graduates needed less than three months of occupational training, and most of the remainder needed less than six months (Sherman, 1983). Perhaps, as Prais & Wagner (1983) have suggested in the case of clerical workers, the benefits of such extended training tend to be underestimated elsewhere, but nevertheless there remains a huge gap between the German conception of training and those prevalent in other countries which on the surface can only be explained in terms of the German commitment to training for cultural and social reasons. The second puzzle relates to the location of training places. Defying conventional notions, the statistics show that apprentices are not disproportionately attached to large firms, or to industry rather than to crafts. As a first step to understanding the solutions to these puzzles, it is necessary to recognise that the dual system is far less monolithic in its structure and operation than is sometimes supposed. Most studies do draw attention to the fact that while the system is regulated at the Federal level by the Berufsbildungsgesetz (Vocational Training Act) of 1969 and amendments, this only provides a framework and some variation must be expected in its implementation. But this is still an understatement. The system is in reality highly diversified and decentralised, control residing in the 195