THE GERMAN MODEL - VOCATIONAL AND EDUCATIONAL TRAINING REFORM IN CHINA
November 01, 2021
About the author:
Digby Wren,
Visiting International Relations and Public Diplomacy Scholar, Deakin University
The beginning of every career is founded in education. Knowledge acquisition, however, is not a straight line from kindergarten to university. For many students, career direction is decided at the completion of middle school at 15 or 16 years of age. At this juncture, the pursuit of further education is often split into a university or vocational and educational training (VET) stream. National models for VET differ markedly, but widely recognised for its efficacy is Germany’s “Dual System,” which combines both theoretical learning and practical training.[1] Germany’s dual-model VET splits the training period between two separate locations, with apprentices spending around 70% of their time within a company and the remaining 30% in a vocational school. This dual-model, which also underpins vocational education and training in Austria and Switzerland, has received much praise and admiration in China.[2] This admiration has also been present in Anglo-America where attempts to “revive or restructure apprenticeships as major pathways into skilled employment” have often been unsuccessful.[3] For example, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) recommends dual-type VET training to counter the weaknesses in the US system of vocational education and training.[4] As China’s economy shifts toward high-end value chains and industrial digitalisation, reform of its VET sector has become a national priority and the central government has drafted a new “Vocational Education Law” that seeks to align more closely with the “German Model.”[5]
Leading Chinese financial market analysts have noted that China has turned from “the American way” to “the German way” and pointed to “the German model [as] a strong contender as a guiding development model.”[6] Discussion has hinged on three convergent policy directions: anti-trust regulation, especially concerning the tech industry and education, maintaining the central role of manufacturing as the services sector expands, and ensuring education is more affordable, student friendly and vocationally focused. For China, these policy initiatives are designed to institute law-based governance, restrict exploitative investment, both domestic and foreign, and direct national resources toward long-term economic development as outlined in China’s 2035 Long Range Goal[7]and the second Centenary Goal, to develop a rich, powerful, democratic, and civilised modern socialist country by 2049.[8]
In looking to the German model, China seeks to reform and improve its VET system to tackle skills shortages for industrial upgrading, youth unemployment, rural revitalization and poverty alleviation. The appeal of the German model for China lies with similarities in their significant export industries underpinned by manufacturing prowess, which account for 25% of economic output in China, 18% in Germany, and 11% in the U.S. Germany’s continuing industrial success is inseparable from both its highly innovative “mittelstand” – economic belts of family owned and geographically decentralised SMEs (small and medium-sized enterprises) – and its highly integrated ‘dual-system’ VET that links public education with technologically advanced middle sized manufacturers. According to Statista, over five million new SME’s are founded in China each year, a 10% year-over-year growth rate.[9] In 2020, the number of SMEs was estimated to be over 43 million, accounting for over 90% of total enterprises, 60% of GDP, 70% of patents, and 80% of national employment. Furthermore, from a total labour force of 750 million, the number of skilled workers has risen to 200 million, indicating the trend towards a higher-quality workforce.[10] The challenge going forward is to harness VET schemes that drive SME growth while addressing imbalances found in China’s previous development path.
(Source: www.edutechzs.com)
During China’s first surge of economic growth, based on low-cost and export-led manufacturing, Sino-German cooperation had facilitated the introduction of ‘dual-model’ VET schemes. Professor Jiang Dayuan, the former editor-in-chief of the journal Chinese Vocational and Technical Education, recalled that the first cooperative project at the Nanjing Institute of Architecture in 1983 was quickly followed with more than 35 specific economic and technology cooperation projects between relevant Chinese and German ministries.[11] In 1985, the pilot dual-system VET projects were extended to six Chinese cities: Shenyang, Suzhou, Wuxi, Changzhou, Wuhu, and Shashi. These programs sought to augment practical hands-on experience and lessen reliance on schools and theoretical instruction. Accordingly, during the 1990s, the central government established VET research institutions in Beijing, Shanghai, Shenyang, Nanjing, Changsha, Changchun, and Shijiazhuang. In 1994, China and Germany signed the Joint Declaration for Strengthening Cooperation in the Field of Vocational Education, the first and only bilateral agreement for cooperation in vocational education.[12] While China’s education model proved effective in large scale dissemination of knowledge and skills during the Deng-era and post-WTO phases of economic expansion, China’s push to achieve technological self-reliance requires further industrial, educational, and labour innovation at speed and scale.
One key challenge for the introduction of the German VET model in China was the search for common principles between the two systems. VET needed to be embedded in national work culture and labour law to form the basis of a specific VET with Chinese characteristics. China’s work culture and VET regime would shape principal ideas and legitimatise the direction of instruction. According to Gonon and Deissinger, there are three types of VET systems:[13]
-
A. Market directed: the work culture and training model aligns with the functional needs of the company or actual job to direct the learning principle.
-
B. Politically directed: the work culture and a bureaucratic training model align with academic achievement to guide the learning principle.
-
C. Society directed: the work culture and training model are regulated by both the market and bureaucracy – a dual control – where the vocational principle determines the learning principle.
During China’s early period of VET development and education reform, the key constraint on teaching quality was identified as teacher resources. In 1997, Tongji University in Shanghai was selected to host the first Sino-German teacher development and training institute. China soon established VET teacher training bases at 58 universities. As VET gained wider societal acceptance, traditional teaching universities adopted the discipline and the first doctoral program was established at East China Normal University.[14] While Germany remained the primary VET model and partner, China’s open educational philosophy and training model also gained valuable knowledge internationally. China introduced the Modules of Employable Skills (MES) from the International Labour Organisation (ILO), joined with Australia to launch a three-year vocational education cooperation project in Chongqing, and, following a number of high-level fact-finding visits to Canada and the U.S., China introduced the competency-based education (CBE) curriculum development model. Significant attention was also paid to the UK and other countries, which established parallel national vocational qualification schemes alongside their national degree systems. According to Jiang, “Britain’s vocational qualification system opened up a new way for people to move into the middle class, as an alternative to academic qualifications.”[15] Thus, China adopted the UK’s Business and Technology Education Council (BTEC) curriculum in 1998.
Notwithstanding China’s experimentation with various international models over past decades, Sino-German VET cooperation and the “dual-system” model have proven advantages over its Anglo-American counterparts. The German model is grounded in the distinction between vocational education (applied sciences) and academic higher education (university). In contrast, the Anglo-American model gives common lower and higher academic degrees for all subjects (bachelor’s degree and master's degree, respectively). In the German model, a diploma is awarded for the more practical subjects such as engineering, but also economics and business. For the more theoretical subjects such as social sciences or humanities a Magister Artium or Master of Arts is awarded. These academic differences between the Anglo-American and German systems have their roots in their historically different approaches to industrialisation.
Historically, the early success of industrialisation in England had been achieved without a significant contribution from education. Emphasis was placed on the common belief that preparation for the world of work was best given on the job rather than in formal education— a type-A VET model. The German archetype however, recognised the importance of a type-C dual-control system, in which society directed work culture and the training model was regulated by both the market and bureaucracy. Overtime, the Anglo-American model discontinued education principles that supported apprenticeships and its supporting social framework.[16] By the beginning of the 21st century, Anglo-America’s neo-liberal focus had corporatised education services and turned to immigration to fill skill shortages and weaken organised labour’s wage-bargaining power. A key consequence was the diminishment of welfare and social state activities to expand public education, which exacerbated the disjunction between educational development and industrial and economic achievement.
Another key factor when considering adoption of the German “dual-system” model is the extensive academic study and annual publication of numerous articles on the development and reform of vocational education. Much of the literature on the transferability of the German VET system, however, lacks a clear definition of the terms “transfer” and “export” of education. In their study of VET transfer to Asia, Stefan Hummelsheim and Michaela Baur define “export” as copy or duplication, while the term “transfer” implies more variation and adaption.[17] For China, the concept of VET transfer is understood as a flexible adaption that assimilates German thinking in both research and practice with traditional Chinese culture and contemporary social and economic conditions. In this view, the orientation of VET specific concepts and requirements determines both the methods and strategies used in the process. China’s unique positioning as both a socialist market economy and developing country requires a high level of flexibility for progression between the organisation of vocational training and general education according to its distinct learning criteria and systems of education and skills assessment.
For China to successfully transfer the German VET “dual-system” of training to its current economic development needs articulated in the principal contradiction “between unbalanced and inadequate development and the people’s ever-growing needs for a better life”, it faces a number of educational and labour organisational challenges.[18] Crucially, the German VET dual-system relies on a functioning training market with the character of a suppliers’ market.[19] In Germany, large businesses and SMEs are the most important group in terms of training suppliers, accounting for 53% of the total. Government subsidised training courses are provided by private schools (10%), Chambers of Commerce and Industry (6%), professional associations (5%), adult education centres and trade unions (3% each). Another important VET scheme involves short-term extension courses of one or two weeks that promote skills upgrading for existing technical and commercial staff, managers and skilled workers in large and medium sized firms.[20] The diversity of training suppliers provides a great variety of objectives, methods, and training programs. These factors have implications for the growth of innovation, especially in SMEs, and the extent to which China’s local training models influence training practices in the subsidiaries of foreign firms.[21]
The presence of a large number of German and European manufacturers and industrial enterprises in China play an important catalysing role to leapfrog into a more productive and sustainable VET program. Many large German companies including Volkswagen, Audi, Siemens and Bosch have previously launched “beacon” VET projects in international markets.[22] These multinationals possess both the financial resources to train skilled workers in their Chinese subsidiaries and are familiar with VET schemes hosted by their parent firms in Germany. However, VET transfer requires more than the influence a German or foreign parent company has on its Chinese subsidiaries. In particular, little is known about the training practices of China’s domestic SMEs since they differ from large companies in important ways, such as experience with foreign environments and the level of resources available to manage operations and their access to local resources, local skills training models, and/or whether they simply adopt local practices. A critical area for education reform in China’s VET education is its “high average and small variance” resulting from over reliance on theoretical classroom activities and rote learning.[23] Accordingly, China must build an innovative VET model based on world-class research capabilities with the primary objective of upgrading local vocational training principles that ensure the transfer of the German model’s advantages to China’s vast number of SMEs.
China has recognised the importance of SMEs as the main drivers of innovation and a key means of addressing moderated economic growth in the face of structural constraints, including declining labor force growth, diminishing returns to investment, and slowing productivity. As China’s processes of “digital industrialisation and industrial digitalisation” accelerate, continuing institutional reform to support SME partnerships is crucial for the generation of robust, long-term economic development.[24] China’s recent reforms of labour law recognise the importance of VET to SMEs and how “vocational skills training models tailored to new forms of employment will be developed, and subsidies provided to eligible workers participating in such training programs.”[25] Important reforms included protection for the flexibly employed, the guarantee of fair remuneration, and the lifting of household registration restrictions. Substantial resources are directed to support and assist women and the unemployed as well as minority nationalities and poverty-stricken localities. Educational standards for classifying and grading occupations are also being brought into conformity, including certificates of schooling, certificates of vocational training and certificates of occupational qualifications.
While innovation, technological capability, and organisational flexibility are key to the success of SMEs, one major challenge for both Chinese and foreign employers is that they will still bear principal financial responsibility for much of the training process, including direct and indirect costs, training personnel, machinery, and administration. Compared to SMEs in other economies, which may have 100 to 500 employees, in China a medium-sized agricultural enterprise is required to hire a minimum of 500 people while a construction enterprise may have a maximum business revenue of approximately ten million US dollars. Notwithstanding these organisational and financial challenges, SMEs must remain the primary focus for China’s VET adoption and practical hands-on training.
The importance of SMEs to VET schemes lies in their technological capability—measured by dividing the number of technological employees by the total number of employees— and distinctly innovative approaches to both manufacturing and service industries. SMEs have a crucial role as suppliers of components to large exporters. Many SMEs generate large amounts of direct foreign exchange by specifically targeting foreign markets leveraging their lower labor and material costs. The Trump-era tech-trade war and the COVID-19 pandemic adversely effected China’s industrial supply chains and the resultant production volatility resonated along the entire chain destabilising larger companies and foreign export markets. Many SMEs were forced to withdraw from foreign markets to concentrate on domestic growth, which intensified competition, causing some to experience financial difficulties or bankruptcy. Employment losses related to SME performance spill into the consumer and real estate markets and generate more instability. In 2019, to counter the challenges of rising costs, financing difficulties, and limited innovation capacity, the Chinese government reduced the bank reserve requirement ratio to promote lending and readjusted tax policies. Despite, government policy support and a significant increase in SME numbers, the average life expectancy of an SME in China is estimated to be only 2.5 years, with many failing during their first year of operation.[26]
Many SMEs have attempted to increase investor interest by harnessing the increasing flows of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) into China’s capital markets. China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) has identified 4,762 SMEs with a high market share in specialised niche sectors and major national-level projects such as space exploration and high-speed railways. These “little giants” with strong innovative capacity and core technologies are comparable to the “hidden champions” of Germany’s small and medium sized firms that are leaders in highly specialised global markets.[27] The central government recently launched a specialised SME stock market in Beijing designed to hasten IPOs and funnel domestic and foreign capital towards the “little giants.”[28] SMEs are also active supporters of B2B e-commerce platforms with collective revenue reaching 6.4 billion USD in 2020.[29] In order to survive, SMEs need to revitalise their niche markets through logistical improvements, responsive marketing, and technical and skills upgrading.
China’s draft revision to the Vocational Education Law calls for more high-quality vocational education resources from abroad and to welcome foreign students of vocational education. One way to accelerate foreign participation is to increase the numbers of enterprises, learning institutions, and students from Belt and Road (BRI) partner countries. Currently, there are German VET transfer projects in many BRI partner countries including Mexico, Brazil, Russia, Indonesia, Laos, Mongolia, Myanmar, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Vietnam and Saudi Arabia.[30] China’s Ministry of Education has called for more international communication and cooperation in the vocational education industry and encourages Chinese vocational education organisations to run schools abroad and advocates mutual recognition of vocational education qualifications. However, casting a wider net to attract participating VET firms in BRI partner countries also necessitates language training beyond English, extensive administrative resources, and integration with existing BRI frameworks for labour mobility and educational exchanges.
China’s constant economic, scientific, and technological reform, and opening up combined with the process of globalisation has provided it with an independent program of technological and institutional innovation at speed and scale. The introduction of Dual Circulation signalled the shift to an economy characterised by services, higher value-added manufacturing, and consumer-oriented growth. China’s Digital Transformation — digital industrialisation and industrial digitalisation — harnesses the capabilities of the little giants in telecommunications (5G), artificial intelligence (AI), electric vehicles (EVs), robotics, satellite navigation, aerospace, edu-tech, fin-tech, biotech, logistics, smart cities, and software. Greater cooperative efforts are required to attract talented professionals in industries such as communications and semiconductors, given that during the COVID-19 pandemic these sectors saw substantial growth. Together, Dual Circulation and Digital Transformation constitute a new digital superstructure of economic development supported by the BRI substructure of connectivity.
The digital Belt and Road supports a lucrative and expanding superstructure of homegrown e-commerce, social media, payment platforms, entertainment, online education, and share-economy applications adopted by commercial and consumer markets in Asia, Africa, and increasingly the U.S. and Europe. Further VET advancement in China requires that prime resources should be focused, and strategic planning made to deal with “key areas and stranglehold problems.”[31] Accordingly, the innovation skills of professionally trained people are of the utmost importance. The systems regarding VET curriculums, teaching instructions, textbooks, and administration need to be updated in accordance with the requirements of both Dual Circulation and Digital Transformation.
To conclude, China has taken substantive measures to reform VET schemes by introducing integrated policy initiatives for labour, education, and SMEs. The nearly forty-year partnership with Germany plays a crucial role for cooperation and development of dual-model VET schemes. Research cooperation between China and Germany is essential for further adoption and adaptation of VET reforms. The topics and framework conditions of cooperation are best addressed in regular meetings that encourage further educational and VET cooperation. Sino-German intergovernmental consultations continue to promote The Joint Action Plan 'Shaping innovation together!' that sets the framework for cooperation in research, science, and education. Key topics for Sino-German research partnership are innovation research, clean water and environmental technologies, urbanisation and land management, life sciences and bioeconomy, marine and polar research, climate research, electromobility, digital economy, as well as higher and vocational education, exchange of students and scientists, and thematic alumni networks. Emphasis should be given to Sino-German initiatives that promote SME responses to market demand with new product innovations that catalyse larger firms to adopt technological and marketing innovations. In the final analysis, the advantage of the German VET dual-system is its potential to enhance the competence of China’s education system, catalyse a fusion of industry and education, and provide long-term structural improvements that align with China’s Digital Transformation, BRI connectivity, and the Dual Circulation paradigm.
(Source: www.edutechzs.com)
TI Observer (TIO) is a monthly publication devoted to bringing China and the rest of the world closer together by facilitating mutual understanding and promoting exchanges of views. If you are interested in knowing more about the October issue, please click here:
[1] Shulei Zhao, Guifang Liu and Qingxi Hou. 2014. “The enlightenment of German higher education ‘Dual System’ to the China’s high education system.” Paper presented at International Conference on Education Reform and Modern Management, 2014.
[2] Junmin Li, Kristina Wiemann, Weiping Shi, Yanan Wang and Matthias Pilz, “Vocational education and training in Chinese and German companies in China: a ‘home international’ comparison,” International Journal of Training & Development, no. 23. (2019):153-168, https://doi.org/10.1111/ijtd.12151.
[3] Thomas Deissinger, “Cultural patterns underlying apprenticeship: Germany and the UK,” Divergence and convergence in education and work 38, (2008): 34.
[7] “CPC Central Committee's development proposals set long-range goals through 2035,” SCIO, March 11, 2020.
[9]“Number of SMEs in China 2012-2020,” Statista, Mar. 11, 2021, https://www.statista.com/statistics/783899/china-number-of-small-to-medium-size-enterprises/
[11] Dayuan Jiang, “Chinese Vocational Education: Borrowing and Reforming,” Chinese Education & Society 46, no. 4 (2013): 92-99, https://doi.org/10.2753/CED1061-1932460409.
[13] Philipp Gonon and Thomas Deissinger, “Towards an international comparative history of vocational education and training,” Taylor & Francis, 2021.
[19] Diane-Gabrielle Tremblay and Le Bot Irene, “The German Dual Apprenticeship System: An Analysis of Its Evolution and Present Challenges,” Mar. 2003.
[21] Junmin Li, Kristina Wiemann, Weiping Shi, Yanan Wang and Matthias Pilz, “Vocational education and training in Chinese and German companies in China: a 'home international' comparison,” International Journal of Training & Development 23, no. 2 (2019): 153-168, https://doi.org/10.1111/ijtd.12151.
[22] Judith Wiemann and Martina Fuchs, “The export of Germany’s ‘secret of success’ dual technical VET: MNCs and multiscalar stakeholders changing the skill formation system in Mexico,” Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy & Society, no. 11 (2018): 373-386, https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsy008.
[23] “China’s Economy Has Grown Up. Its Education System Needs to Keep Up,” Caixin Global, Sep. 6, 2021, https://www.caixinglobal.com/2021-09-06/editorial-chinas-economy-has-grown-up-its-education-system-needs-to-keep-up-101769672.html.
[24] “Xi sends congratulatory letter to China-SCO forum on digital economy, Smart China Expo,” Xinhuanet, Oct. 26, 2021, http://www.news.cn/english/2021-08/23/c_1310143602.htm.
[26] Guoxiang Tang, Kwangtae Park, Anurag Agarwal and Feng Liu, “Impact of innovation culture, organization size and technological capability on the performance of SMEs: The Case of China,” Sustainability 12, no. 4 (2020): 1355.
[27] Yu Cheng, “New batch of little giants to champion SME cause,” China Daily, Aug. 26, 2021, https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202108/26/WS6126e3f3a310efa1bd66b2de.html.
[28] Lanxu Zhou, “First-choice listing venue for innovative SMEs,” China Daily, Oct. 11, 2021, https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202110/11/WS616376afa310cdd39bc6df4e.html.
[30] Melanie Oeben, Matthias Klumpp and Lumpe A, “Transfer of the German Vocational Education and Training System—Success Factors and Hindrances with the Example of Tunisia,” Education Sciences 11, no. 5 (2021): 247, https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11050247.
—————————————————————
ON TIMES WE FOCUS.
Should you have any questions, please contact us at public@taiheglobal.org
