\doc\web\97\08\stw2.txt
STW/German Model in Austin, TX


>X-POP3-Rcpt: fredb001@blue
>Return-Path: <Bonnylinn@aol.com>
>From: Bonnylinn@aol.com
>Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 15:03:59 -0400 (EDT)
>To: EDUCATION-CONSUMERS@tricon.net, FredB001@spectra.net
>Subject: STW/German Model in Austin, TX
>
>Dear All,
>
>For a time, the "Texas Toolbox" link had stopped working. It has been under
>reconstruction. Now that it's back on line, I found a detailed description of
>the German STW model now in use in Austin. For what it's worth, you might
>find it interesting. A couple of excerpts appear below.
>
>
http://192.234.8.26/contracts/toolbox/Germany.html

>
>Jeanne Donovan, Coordinator
>Education Consumers Association of Fort Worth & Crowley
>
http://geowww.geo.tcu.edu/eca

>=======================================
>In fall 1993, a team composed of industry representatives, government
>training officials, and researchers sponsored by the Greater Austin Chamber
>of Commerce visited Germany, Denmark, and Switzerland to examine governance
>and finance of apprenticeship. The team concluded that perhaps the most
>impressive features of the European system are their large scale coverage,
>their systemic approach, and the responsibility that industry widely assumes
>jointly with schools for the professional development of youth (Center for
Lea
>rning and Competitiveness, 1994e). European planners start by calculating
>need and assemble resources to meet that need; in contrast, Americans
>typically begin by examining available resources and calculate how many can
>be served with these limited resources. Whereas Europeans develop systems to
>serve all people, Americans design limited programs to serve special
>populations whose needs were used to justify the expenditure of public funds
>in the first place. Americans attempt to conserve public funds by reserving
>eligibility for services only to "deserving" individuals who can demonstrate
>the need for them. As a result, American programs often are stigmatized and
>balkanized into numerous, inflexible, overlapping, duplicative, narrow
>efforts for separate populations, which have uneven coverage and inadequate
>overall resources available, and serve neither the needs of trainees nor
>employers very well.
>
>At the outset, I should point out Austin does not aim to replicate the German
>education and training system. Clearly the United States cannot adopt the
>German approach wholesale, nor should it want to. Germany's education and
>training system is embedded in a set of cultural practices that will not
>transfer well to American soil. In perhaps the most widely cited example,
>Germany uses a fairly rigid tracking system in its lower secondary schools
>that most Americans find unacceptable because it closes options for youths
>before they even become teenagers. Another feature to which many American
>industry officials object is the mandatory membership requirements of German
>Chambers of Commerce. Rather than trying to replicate the German system, a
>better approach is to identify essentials that underlie the German approach
>and to find appropriate ways to adapt them to practices in the United States.
>
>