Apprenticeship, Pathways and Career Guidance:
A Cautionary Tale
Richard Sweet
INAP
Turin, 17 September 2009
Siegfried
Wellgunde
Flosshilde Bronnlinde
Unwary policy maker
Apprenticeship
Unwary policy maker
Apprenticeship
“... It is important that every community in every State of this nation develop more school-to-work programs. The best alternative is to craft an American version of European apprenticeships - not necessarily just like the German system, but one that blends vocational and academic education in high school, provides students meaningful work experience, and continues their training after graduation.”
Bill Clinton, Governor of Arkansas, Vocational Education Journal, October 1991
Very few countries have large apprenticeship systems for youth
Apprentices as a share of upper secondary enrolments(Mid 1990s estimate)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70Source: OECD, 2000
Apprenticeship: failure and success
• Failure– Korea– Sweden– United States
• Success– Ireland– Norway
Why?
• “Hard” institutional factors– Legislation and regulation– Training wages– Financing systems– Qualifications and certification arrangements
• “Soft” institutional factors– The quality of governance– Social capital at the local level
Today:
• Apprenticeship pathways and:
Aspirations Equity Career guidance
Pathways
EDUCATION AND TRAINING
PROGRAMSDESTINATIONS
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGMENTS
Aspirations
15 year-olds aspiring to tertiary education, 2003 (%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Germ
any
Switzerla
nd
Austria
Nether
lands
Denmar
k
Poland
Czech
Repub
lic
Slovak
Rep
ublic
Finlan
d
France
Portugal
Icel
and
New Zeala
nd
Luxem
bourg
Norway
Italy
Belgiu
mSpai
n
Hungary
Mex
ico
Sweden
Irela
nd
Australia
japan
United
State
s
Greece
Canada
Turkey
Korea
%
Source: OECD PISA 2003 database
Equity
In equitable countries, achievement depends upon talent, not upon
family background
Variance in science achievement explained by family socio-economic status (%), 2006
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
Luxem
bourg
Hungary
France
Belgiu
m
Slovak
Rep
ublic
Germ
any
United
State
s
Mex
ico
Nether
lands
Portugal
Turkey
New Zeala
nd
Switzerla
nd
Czech
Repub
lic
Austria
Greece
Poland
Denmar
k
Spain
United
Kingdom
Irela
nd
Australia
Sweden Ita
ly
Finlan
d
Norway
Canada
Korea
Japa
n
Icel
and
%
Source: PISA 2006
Streaming within school systems
• Some countries stream strongly and at an early age
– Austria, Germany, Luxembourg, Switzerland
• Some countries delay streaming until a later age
– Canada, Denmark, Japan, Norway
A model of ability streaming and wealth streaming in schooling
High achievers and low achievers are in different schools
The wealthy are not in the same schools as the poor
High achievers and low achievers are in the same schools
The wealthy are in the same schools as the poor
Low equity
High equity
Ability streaming, streaming by wealth and apprenticeship
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Between school variance explained by socio-economic status (%)
Be
twe
en
sc
ho
ol v
ari
an
ce
in s
cie
nc
e p
erf
orm
an
ce
ISLFIN
NOR SWE ESP
DNK
CAN
MEX
KOR
CZE
DEU
BEL
NZL
SVK
GRC
AUT
CHE
USALUX
NZL
PRT
UKM
AUS
IRL
TUR
NLD
ITAJPN
OECD average
Low streaming by SES
Low streaming by achievement
High streaming by achievement
High streaming by SES
Equity and pathway size
Equity and vocational pathways, 2006
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
Variation in achievement explained by socio-economic status, 2006 (%)
Up
pe
r s
ec
on
da
ry e
nro
lme
nts
in v
oc
ati
on
al p
rog
ram
me
s (
%)
LUXDEU
CHE
BEL
SVK
NLD
CZE
AUT
FIN
ITA
SWE
NOR
DNK
ISL
KOR
JPN
CAN
IRL
ESPPOL
FRA
TUR
GRC PRT
HUN
MEX
Low equity, large upper secondary VET
OECD average
High equity, small upper secondary VET
High equity, large upper secondary VET
Low equity, small upper secondary VET
Equity and tertiary pathways, 2006
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
Variation in achievement explained by socio-economic status, 2006 (%)
Te
rtia
ry q
ua
lifie
d 2
5-3
4 y
ea
r-o
lds
, 20
06
(%
)
AUS
AUT
KOR
CANJPN
DEU
CHE
HUN
SVK
TUR
CZE
MEXPRT
GRCPOL
Low equity, small tertiary
FIN
NOR SWE
IRL
UKM
ESP
DNK
High equity, large tertiary systems
ITA
ISL
LUX
FRABEL
US
NZL
NLD
OECD average
Career guidance
Schools in which career guidance is compulsory, 2006
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Portugal
Czech
Repub
lic
Hungary
Slovak
Rep
ublic
Belgiu
m
Austria
Icel
and
Germ
any
United
State
s of A
mer
ica
Irela
nd
New Zeala
ndIta
ly
Luxem
bourg
Mex
ico
Turkey
Canada
Switzerla
ndKore
a
Sweden
Australia
Denmar
k
Spain
Nether
lands
United
Kingdom
Finlan
d
Greece
Norway
Japa
n
% o
f al
l sc
ho
ols
Difference in achievement levels between schools where guidance is compulsory and schools where it is voluntary
Guidance favours high achievers
Guidance favours low achievers-80
-60
-40
-20
00
20
40
60
80
100
Switzerla
nd
Luxem
bourg
Germ
any
Austria
Czech
Repub
lic Italy
United
State
s of A
mer
ica
Portugal
Icel
and
Australia
New Zeala
nd
Hungary
Irela
nd
Finlan
d
Sweden
Spain
United
Kingdom
Denmar
k
Norway
Mex
ico
Slovak
Rep
ublic
Nether
lands
Canada
Japa
n
Turkey
Belgiu
m
Korea
Greece
Co
mp
uls
ory
min
us
volu
nta
ry
Teachers’ tertiary focus and guidance
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
Irela
nd
Portugal
Belgiu
m
Slovak
Rep
ublic
Hungary
Icel
and
Australia
Nether
lands
Canada
Mex
ico
Japa
n
Norway
United
Kingdom
Denmar
k
Spain
Greece
Korea
Austria
United
State
s of A
mer
ica
Switzerla
nd
Germ
any
Italy
New Zeala
nd
Czech
Repub
lic
Luxem
bourg
Turkey
Guidance more likely when tertiary focus of teachers is strong
Guidance more likely when tertiary focus of teachers is incidental
Guidance equally likely
Either not provided or all teachers provide it
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Korea
Belgiu
m
Hungary
Greece
Mex
ico
Italy
Japa
n
Austria
Switzerla
nd
United
State
s of A
mer
ica
Luxem
bourg
Slovak
Rep
ublic
Portugal
Icel
and
Nether
lands
Canada
Germ
any
Czech
Repub
lic
Spain
Irela
nd
Norway
New Zeala
nd
Australia
United
Kingdom
Sweden
Denmar
k
Finlan
d
Per
cen
t o
f al
l sc
ho
ols
Specific teachers or counsellors are employed by the school
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Belgiu
m
Korea
Switzerla
nd
Hungary
Germ
any
Mex
ico
Greece
United
Kingdom
Italy
Denmar
k
Austria
Japa
n
Nether
lands
United
State
s of A
mer
ica
Luxem
bourg
Portugal
Canada
Icel
and
Slovak
Rep
ublic
Sweden
Czech
Repub
lic
Spain
New Zeala
nd
Irela
nd
Australia
Norway
Finlan
d
Per
cen
t o
f al
l sc
ho
ols
Visiting counsellors provide it
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Norway
Spain
Australia
Italy
Mex
ico
United
State
s of A
mer
ica
Hungary
Czech
Repub
lic
Canada
Greece
Korea
Icel
and
Portugal
Sweden
Nether
lands
Belgiu
m
Switzerla
nd
Germ
any
United
Kingdom
Denmar
k
% o
f al
l sc
ho
ols
External and experiential focus of careers
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
Belgiu
m
Korea
Mex
ico
Turkey
Irela
nd
Spain
Hungary
Slovak
Rep
ublic
Icel
and
Greece
Luxem
bourg
Sweden
Portugal
United
State
s of A
mer
ica
Italy
Nether
lands
New Zeala
nd
Switzerla
nd
Norway
Finlan
d
Canada
Czech
Repub
lic
Denmar
k
United
Kingdom
Austria
Australia
Germ
any
Ind
ex v
alu
e (m
axim
um
=10
0)
Source: PISA 2006. Index of job fairs, business lectures and industry visits
Conclusions about guidance (1)
• Whether or not career guidance is provided does not seem to be linked to pathways
• However who gets it does:– In Germany and Switzerland, and perhaps
Austria, career guidance seems to be pathway-dependent
– In Denmark and Norway, and perhaps the Netherlands it seems to be provided more equitably
Conclusions about guidance (2)
• How career guidance is provided does seem to be linked to pathways
– In all apprenticeship countries, career guidance seems to have a strong external, experiential and labour market focus
Conclusions
• The relationship between apprenticeship, pathways, equity and career guidance differs
– Germany and Switzerland on the one hand– Denmark and Norway on the other– Austria and the Netherlands somewhere in between
Top Related