1. Comments to the German Case: New & updated job profiles for apprenticeship training Miroslav Procházka the Czech Republic the Czech Republic Workshop 2: Structural Conditions for Change / Improvement (Institutional arrangements for quality assurance, meeting labour market needs & planning improvement in IVET) Graz May 11 – 12 2006

2. IVET and CVET in the CZ: recent development  The Parliament has adopted the act on accreditation and validation of further education  The National Qualification Framework is being prepared  The way of final examination in vocational training fields of study is being changed (in sense of wider participation of main actors – schools and employers – in framing and realisation of the exam)  A curricular reform is slowly starting (it is based on the principle of 2-level creation of the curricula) Quality Assurance becomes the key factor for each of these steps is successful

3. Main aspects of quality  Functional relevance: extent of correspondence between qualification structure and structure of current and anticipative needs of labour market - it depends on methodology of a labour market needs survey and on the way of creating curricula (training regulation)  Functional effectiveness: extent of correspondence between anticipated aims and achievements – it depends on the way of provision  Adequacy: extent of correspondence between aspirations and real opportunities – both individually and institutionally  Effectiveness: achievements comparing with invested resources

4. Conceptual framework of the comments  Functional relevance is closest to the defined topic of the workshop  The basic difference between UK and Germany (especially in the way of provision of IVET) is not relevant from our (workshop) point of view  It is difficult and problematic to compare only parts of educational systems without reflecting context I will focus especially on the context; appropriate balance of various views on quality (of the whole system, not only its parts) provides the total view.

5. General questions  Isn´t high quality in one view complemented with problems of other (wider) concept of quality?  Are different aims (and quality concepts) in conflict?  Basic conflict (tension) in IVET between :  the need to accomplish especially current demands of labour market (employers)  and to respect long-term needs of trainees (lifelong employability, flexibility, key competencies, preparing for civil life)

6. Specific questions Are there any data on unemployment rate for DS graduates in comparison with other forms of training (especially full time vocational schools) just after completing the studies and later (possible according to age)?

7. Youth unemployment rates (% of the labour force aged 15 - 24) 200020012002 EU 1515 ACC 10293132 EU 25181718 DE9810 UK12 CZ1817

8. Specific questions Are there any data on “ professional stability ” (whether they have been still doing what they have learnt) or are there any other data on flexibility of DS graduates? How the graduates perform as soon as they enter the “open” labour market?

9. Professional stability of people with upper secondary education

10. Professional stability The extensive analysis of LFS data researched correspondence between a branch of study and a profession being performed 4 categories: A - full matching, B - partial matching, C - partial difference, D – great miss-matching 1996: roughly 5 years after leaving school 2001: all, 20-24, 25-29

11. Specific questions What is the perspective trend in relationship between demand for placement in DS and supply of positions in enterprises? Is it true what is sometimes declared, that the number of employers disposed to have apprentices is decreasing? If it is true, does it mean something for DS itself or for the role of schools ?

12. Specific questions What is the reason for relatively high proportion of “ early school leavers ” and relatively low proportion of people with at least upper secondary level? Isn´t the insufficient capacity of DS (combining with low full-time schools prestige) one of the reasons?

13. Share of the population (18-24) with only lower-secondary education and not in ed. 200220032004 EU 2516,415,9 DE12,612,8 UK17,716,7 CZ5,56,06,1

14. % of the population (20-24) having completed at least upper-secondary education 200220032004 EU 2576,676,776,4 DE73,372,572,8 UK77,278,276,4 CZ91,792,090,9

15. Specific questions Is development of aprentices´ general and key competencies sufficient? Prospectively, is the theoretic education sufficient?

16. Percentage of pupils with reading literacy proficiency level 1 and lower (PISA) 20002003 EU19,419,8 DE22,622,3 UK12,8 CZ17,519,4

17. Specific questions  What is the vertical permeability (opportunity for the graduates from DS to continue studies on tertiary level)?  What will be the level of qualifications obtained in DS in EQF?  Are the qualifications obtained in DS equivalent to those obtained at full-time schools (formally, practically)?

18. Concluding remarks  DS is excellent in fulfilling the aim of meeting the needs of employers  It is not clear about sufficient fulfilling the aim of long-term and broader needs of trainees (both they in DS and they don´t undergo DS and don´t continue at higher or university education)