Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Sistemul de instruire profesională în intreprinderi şi în şcoli în Austria
Lorenz Lassnigg ([email protected]; www.equi.at)
Österreichisch -Rumänische Kooperation, Seminar “Berufsausbildung in Rumänien und Österreich, Ausbildungssysteme und Anforderungen des Arbeitsmarktes “, 16.-17. 10. 08, Wien
Agenda
���� Strutura sistemului austriac de instruire„Anticipation systems“
„Anticipation systems“
���� Caracteristici si probleme ale instruirii ucenicilor Matching-concepts, indicators, country practices, Austrian case
���� Rezultatele diferitelor cäi de instruire- Rezultate
- Venit- Ocuparea locurilor de muncä de cätre tineret
no clear measure, missing aspects, no clear effects, complexity
���� Politicä si viitor
Agenda
���� Strutura sistemului austriac de instruire„Anticipation systems“
„Anticipation systems“
���� Merkmale und Probleme der LehrlingsausbildungMatching-concepts, indicators, country practices, Austrian case
���� Ergebnisse der verschiedenen Bildungsgänge- Leistungen
- Einkommen- Jugendbeschäftigung
no clear measure, missing aspects, no clear effects, complexity
���� Politik und Zukunft
Caracteristici ale structurii generale
���� Separare din timp în scoli “înalte” si “mainstream” 10 ani
���� Instruire profesionalä puternicä în ciclul secundar II (15-19 ani)- Instruirea de ucenici si instruire scolarä completä
- diferentiat dupä 3 nivele (meserie, scoala medie si înaltä)
- diferentiat dupä 3 nivele (meserie, scoala medie si înaltä)- ucenicii relativ tineri (16 ani)
���� Instruire scolarä înaltä slabä, 2-3 tracks
Agenda
���� Struktur des österreichischen Bildungssystems„Anticipation systems“
„Anticipation systems“
���� Caracteristici si probleme ale instruirii ucenicilor Matching-concepts, indicators, country practices, Austrian case
���� Ergebnisse der verschiedenen Bildungsgänge- Leistungen
- Einkommen- Jugendbeschäftigung
no clear measure, missing aspects, no clear effects, complexity
���� Politik und Zukunft
Caracteristici ale instruirii ucenicilor
���� apprenticeship lowest level of a tracked and layered system
���� problems to provide enough training places for young people seeking an apprenticeship
���� profile compared to German and Swiss systems:- early age;
- individualised training or small groups of apprentices;- mainly plain on-the-job-training /seldom training infrastructure
���� small net costs; returns lower than from other tracks; drop-outs not clear and not comparable; signs for decreasing outcomes
���� demand increasingly concentrating on traditional trades, new trades not very expanding
���� policy: much subsidisation; very little emphasis on pedagogy
Problema: nivelul cel mai de jos
Produces many problems with incentives for the involved actors
Schools: too little incentives for better competences, as there have
Schools: too little incentives for better competences, as there have been no formal requirements for the access to apprenticeship
Potential apprentices: too little incentives to choose an apprenticeship, as full-time schools produce better opportunities
to proceed
Enterprises: too little incentives, as trainability of applicants is expected low, and cost-benefit relation might be lower for
employyes from school, and might decrease for apprentices
… demand/supply training places
���� Longer-term decrease of proportion of apprentices and increase of unemployment
���� Signs for a qualitative turn in enterprise behaviour around 2000
���� Signs for structural problems on apprenticeship market: Beveridge Curve moved outward 1970-96; since 1976 only
movement at the seekers’ side
���� Only small effects of policy measures
5 0 0 %
6 0 0 %
7 0 0 %
8 0 0 %
Index of students, classes, teachers in different areas of education, 1970/01=100
Participation in education ‘70-’05
0 %
1 0 0 %
2 0 0 %
3 0 0 %
4 0 0 %
1970
/71
1980
/81
1990
/91
1995
/94
2000
/01
2005
/06
1970
/71
1980
/81
1990
/91
1995
/94
2000
/01
2005
/06
1970
/71
1980
/81
1990
/91
1995
/94
2000
/01
2005
/06
1970
/71
1980
/81
1990
/91
1995
/94
2000
/01
2005
/06
1970
/71
1980
/81
1990
/91
1995
/94
2000
/01
2005
/06
1970
/71
1980
/81
1990
/91
1995
/94
2000
/01
2005
/06
1970
/71
1980
/81
1990
/91
1995
/94
2000
/01
2005
/06
S c h u lty p e nin s g e s a m t
A llg e m e in b ild e n d ePf lic h ts c h u le n
A llg e m e in b ild e n d eh ö h e r e S c h u le n
B e r u f s s c h u le n B M H S B e r u f s b ild e n d em it t le r e S c h u le n
B e r u f s b ild e n d eh ö h e r e S c h u le n
S c h u le n K la s s e n S c h ü le r In n e n L e h r e r In n e n w S w L
Total CompulsoryS AcademTr Apprent. Full-timeVET lower
upper
Apprenticeship market (monthly figures)
Le hrling s ma rkt 1 /19 9 3 -1 2 /2 0 02
10000
11000
12000
13000
7.000
12.000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Le hrs te lle ns uc he nd e m o na tlic h 1 9 9 3 -2 0 0 2 O ffe ne Le hrs te lle n m o na tlic h 1 9 9 3 -2 0 0 2
Applicants Training places
1993
7.000
Le hrlings markt 1/1993-12/2002
10000
11000
12000
13000
Apprenticeship market (monthly figures)
93
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Le hrs te lle ns uc he nd e mo na tlic h 1993-2002 Offe ne Le hrs te lle n mo na tlic h 1993-2002
93
94
95
96
97-02
Applicants Training places
Le hrlings markt 1/1993-12/2002
10000
11000
12000
13000
Apprenticeship market (monthly figures)
93
12.000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Le hrs te lle ns uc he nd e mo na tlic h 1993-2002 Offe ne Le hrs te lle n mo na tlic h 1993-2002
93
94
95
96
97-02
Applicants Training places
3.000
9.000
7.000
Beginners Austria, Germany
105%
110%
115%
120%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Austria GermanySource: Schneeberger & Novak 2007; German report 2007
Training enterprises
43000
45000
47000
35000
37000
39000
41000
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
No. of Training enterprisesSource: Schneeberger & Novak 2007
Beginners and enterprises
110%
120%
1,05
1,1
80%
90%
100%
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
0,9
0,95
1
Beginners Train.Enterpr. Av. Beginner/train.entpr. (ri.Sc.)
Agenda
���� Struktur des österreichischen Bildungssystems„Anticipation systems“
„Anticipation systems“
���� Merkmale und Probleme der LehrlingsausbildungMatching-concepts, indicators, country practices, Austrian case
���� Rezultatele diferitelor căi de instruire- Rezultate
- Venit- Ocuparea locurilor de muncă de către tineret
no clear measure, missing aspects, no clear effects, complexity
���� Politik und Zukunft
Kompetenţe - PISA 2000Reading Math
ScienceLowest levels by considerable proportion ofapprentices: in PISA 2000 reading below level 2:about 32% of male and 27% of female appr.(as compared to about 15% of lower levelVET full-time school)
PISA 2000 - Cititul după nivele
-50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
AHS
BHS
BMS
APPR
AP-m
AP-f
COMP
Total
PISA 5 1812200109
PISA 4 3936137510425
PISA 3 3136352424231730
PISA 2 1014353939393722
PISA <1 00-2-7-8-5-14-4
PISA 1 -2-2-13-23-24-22-28-10
AHSBHSBMSAPPRAP-mAP-fCOMPTotal
Instruirea profesională în diferente la citit
60
70
80A
nte
il d
er B
eru
fsb
ildu
ng
au
f IS
CE
D3 Internat.
Vergleich
R2 = 0,1979
20
30
40
50
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Leistungsunterschiede Lesen PISA 2003 zwischen Schulen
An
teil
der
Ber
ufs
bild
un
g a
uf
ISC
ED
3
Proportionof VETat ISCED 3
Proportion of achievement differences betweenschools (PISA reading 2003)
Rezultate: Referinţa şcoala obligatorie
Private returns by educational tracks and gender ‘81-’05 (estimated additional income to comp.ed.)
Male Female
H.E
Upp
Acad
LowAPPR
H.E
UppAcadLow
APPR
Rezultate după sex
47%
72%
41%
65%
VET upper level
Tertiary
14%
27%
39%
12%
31%
38%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
APPRENTICESHIP
VET lower level
Academic upp.sec.
male femaleSource: Steiner, Schuster & Vogtenhuber 2007
Rezultate: EU-14 comparaţie
Returns: clear hierarchy between educational tracks
EU-14 Comparison only for medium level employees (upper secondary education) possible
(upper secondary education) possible- average employment
- moderate higher income (+10%)- markedly lower unemployment (-40%)
Lower educated compared to medium level employees relative higher unemployment than in EU14 (similar relations income
and employment)
Higher educated compared to med. level employees - smaller income bonus (similar relations employment, unemployment)
Instru
irea pro
fesion
alăşi sexu
l
60%
70%female/male ST graduates per 1.000 of 20-
29yrs population
60%
70%female/male ST graduates per 1.000 of 20-
29yrs population
AU
ST
RIA
R2
= 0,4717
20%
30%
40%
50%
2030
4050
6070
80
% in V
ET
program
me
s at IS
CE
D 3
female/male ST graduates per 1.000 of 2029yrs population
AU
ST
RIA
R2
= 0,4717
20%
30%
40%
50%
2030
4050
6070
80
% in V
ET
program
me
s at IS
CE
D 3
female/male ST graduates per 1.000 of 2029yrs population
Ocuparea forţei de muncă �omajul
ActivityYouth activity rate in A ~20% above EU-average (D ~5%), FIN
below A, above D
Unemployment rateYouth unemployment rate in A below EU-average, but rise from
below 30% to above 50% (D from 70% to 90%), FIN improvement from 140% to 110%
Unemployment ratioYouth ue ratio a bit less favourable, in A from above 30% to
70% (from above 40% to 90%), FIN above 120%
Overall: Finland improved its relative position to EU as compared to A and D markedly
Ocuparea locurilor de muncă de către tineri, AL (EU-15 = 100)
90%
100%
110%
120%
130%
140%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
17. Activity rate (% of population aged 15-24) 22. Youth unemployment rate (% labour force 15-24)
24. Youth unemployment ratio (% population aged 15-24) Source: EIE 2007
Comparaţie: Austria, Germ, Fin /EU-15
110%
120%
130%
140%
150%
160%
AT/EU15 17. Activity rate (% of populationaged 15-24)
AT/EU15 22. Youth unemployment rate (%labour force 15-24)
AT/EU15 24. Youth unemployment ratio (%population aged 15-24)
FIN
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
population aged 15-24)
DE/EU15 17. Activity rate (% of populationaged 15-24)
DE/EU15 22. Youth unemployment rate (%labour force 15-24)
DE/EU15 24. Youth unemployment ratio (%population aged 15-24)
FI/EU15 17. Activity rate (% of population aged15-24)
FI/EU15 22. Youth unemployment rate (%labour force 15-24)
FI/EU15 24. Youth unemployment ratio (%population aged 15-24)
Source: Employment in Europe 2007
ÖST
DEU
Comparaţie: Fin/EU - [Austria,Germ]/EU
70%
80%
90%
100%
110%
120%
130%
FI/EU-A/EU 17. Activity rate (% of populationaged 15-24)
FIN: AL
[email protected]: Employment in Europe 2007
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
FI/EU-A/EU 22. Youth unemployment rate (%labour force 15-24)
FI/EU-A/EU 24. Youth unemployment ratio (%population aged 15-24)
FI/EU-D/EU 17. Activity rate (% of populationaged 15-24)
FI/EU-D/EU 22. Youth unemployment rate (%labour force 15-24)
FI/EU-D/EU 24. Youth unemployment ratio (%population aged 15-24)
FIN: BESCH
Agenda
���� Struktur des österreichischen Bildungssystems„Anticipation systems“
„Anticipation systems“
���� Merkmale und Probleme der LehrlingsausbildungMatching-concepts, indicators, country practices, Austrian case
���� Ergebnisse der verschiedenen Bildungsgänge- Leistungen
- Einkommen- Jugendbeschäftigung
no clear measure, missing aspects, no clear effects, complexity
���� Politica si viitorul
Politica
The main Austrian policies have been- firstly to develop new trades,
- secondly to subsidize apprenticeships,- thirdly to lower the demands on both sides, young people (by
- thirdly to lower the demands on both sides, young people (by creating less demanding profiles) and enterprises (by reducing
some criteria and by releasing social security payments.
Very little has been made at the level of the basic pedagogic profile of training provision.
Overall a high rate of subsidies has been created, with an average stock of about 5.000 training places (more than 5% compared to enterprise training places) in a safety net, and
about 13% of apprenticeships subsidised.
Probleme
���� Innovation and upgrading via upper level VET colleges, littlepressure for innovation in apprenticeship, shift of costs from
the private to the public sector
���� Policy challenges:
���� Policy challenges:- first, reduction of the hierarchy of tracks;
- second, monitoring of quality/performance at enterprise level;- third, integration of apprenticeship and full-time VET schooling
Alternative: increase of selectivity of competing tracks?
���� Specific issues:- training in individualised settings with only 1-2 apprentices
- reduction of employment protection of apprentices right way?- basic rationale of costs-benefits vs. moral commitment
- attention to quality issues, namely at enterprise level
Soluţii/Propuneri
- Quality assurance, e.g., social partners charge subsidisation due the quality criteria (completion, learning difficulties, Trainers,
additional training supply, regional demand, etc.)
- Differentiation and upgrading, linkage to higher education (e.g.,
- Differentiation and upgrading, linkage to higher education (e.g., via NQF, EQF), maturity examination for apprentices
- Reform of transition mechanism from compulsory school to VET, marked increase of counselling and orientation
- development of cooperation between enterprises and with training centers (long time no consensus)
- Modularisation: new structure of occupations
- no consensus: time flexibility between enterprise and school
