f:\doc\web\98\06\brokmod.txt I'll mail you a print out of the April 6th 1996 Economist which shows how the German model, on which STW is based, is broken. You really need to show how the STW model differs from the actual german model * IS FOR ALL STUDENTS ? NO! * ELMINATE TRACKING? NO! * CIM GUARANANTEES ALL GRADUATE AT WORLD STANDARDS? NO! * USES PERFORMANCE BASED TESTING/EDUCATION? NO! * ELIMINATES UNEMPLOYABLES? NO! US - all students get CIM, all students undergo work training, all students graduate at one standard good for university or vocational jobs. Education geared towards vocational applications. Germany - 3 tracks go to different high schools. Uneducable track gets no certificate of ability. Middle track CIM goes to 10th grade exiters, they spend 2 years at half wage. CIM is not good enough for universities. Top track skips CIM and vocational training, takes 13th grade Arbitur (= top 50% of SAT) Tough tests emphasize basic skills, academics and memorization. Tucker's model is a bastardization of the German system which doesn't even work even in its original form. We will switch from a nationa focused to sending 70% of kids to college and 90% past 12th grade to a "world-class" system where our kids graduate with 10th grade skills, and only as many go to college as the labor market demands. Scanned article is at: http://www.leconsulting.com/arthurhu/images/98/09/02/germstw/Page0001.html The Economist April 6th 1996 p. 19 "Training and jobs: What works?" "A Broken Model" "Under this system, most German 16 year olds sign an apprenticeship contract with a local firm to work part time for below entry level wages, in return for training at the firm" "Part of the cost is borne by the apprentices themselves, in the form of reduced wages and forgone opportunies" "The system is not a solution .... particularly apparent now that German unemployment has hit a post-war high of 11.1%. Almost half of Germany's unemployed are graduates of work-based apprenticeships; the problem is that once they have to be paid adultages, many aretoo expensive to keep on" "Young Germans have become so skeptical that apprenticeships will deliver a stable well-paid job that most now PREFER TO GO TO UNIVERSITIES. In 1993, for the first time, more people went to university 1.9m than into the dual education system 1.8m, and those seeking places in the system began to fall." "but it churns out relatively few lesser-skilled but flexible workers able to switch easily from one task to another.. even fewer low-skilled workers that German businesses need to cut labor costs". Date sent: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 03:18:26 -0400 From: Diana Fessler To: arthurhu@halcyon.com Subject: Re: Julanne > Web page update > > http://www.fessler.com > > National School-to-Work Office issuing misinformation to Congress and state lawmakers. Letter from Diana Fessler to U. S. Secretaries Riley and Herman regarding the response her letter concerning the National School-to-Work meeting that took place in Cleveland, June 1998. > > Diana M. Fessler > Ohio State Board of Education - Third District > 7530 Ross Road > New Carlisle, OH 45344 > 937-845-8428 > diana@fessler.com > http://www.fessler.com > > Scanned article is at: http://www.leconsulting.com/arthurhu/images/98/09/02/germstw/Page0001.html Excerpt: A broken model So much for the big government-financed training schemes What about the biggest single scheme of all, Germany's highly regarded "dual education system"? Under this system, most German 16-year-olds sign an apprenticeship contract with a local firm to work part-time, for below entry level wages, in return for training at the firm. The rest of the time they go to a vocational school (eg, one for insurance another for chemists) run by the local government. When the apprentice-pupils finish, most get -- or used to get-- jobs either with their employer, or at least in their field. There are a lot of good things in the German model, but this is not a government training scheme in the ordinary sense. Rather, it a company apprenticeship scheme inextricably tied to the education system. Apprenticeships take place in a workplace not at a training center Pan of the cost is borne by the apprentices themselves, in the form of reduced wages and forgone opportunities The largest chunk comes from businesses: of the total of DM312 billion ($211 billion) spent on all education in Germany in 1993 DM67 billion was spent by companies on vocational training. The teachers who train the apprentices are paid by the companies themselves: examinations under the system are set up by local Chambers of Commerce The system is certainly better than most. It provides firms with a supply of qualified workers Through their influence over the curriculum employers (who know what kids of jobs will be needed in future can ensure that school-leavers have the skills needed to do new jobs -- in theory anyway. For their pain, apprentices get a skill that should be marketable and gain experience of how companies really work Such a scheme, which has its roots in Germany's consenus system of rule linking companies, unions and government, would be extremely hard for others to copy. But even if they could, it is doubtful whether they should. The system is not a solution to unemployment, something particularly ap parent now that German unemployment has hit a post-war high of over 4m {11.1%} Almost half of Germany's unemployed are graduates of work-based apprenticeships; the problem is that once they have to be paid adult wages, many are too expensive to keep on. In this sense, one of the main benefits of the "dual-education system" is nothing to do with skills: it merely provides cheap labour -- but only for a short time. Germany's construction workers for example, are probably better trained than British or Polish ones. But 90,000 German builders are now sitting at home, while twice as many foreigners toil on German building sites For jobless German brickies meticulous training has not kept the dole at bay. Young Germans have become so sceptical that apprenticeships will deliver a stable, well-paid job that most now prefer to go to the country's lackluster universities, hoping to increase their chances of getting skilled employment by having two qualifications. In 1993, for the first time more people went to university (1.9m) than into the dual education system (1.8m) Also for the first time the number of those seeking places in the system began to fall. Employers remain supportive but increasingly critical: they complain that it can take year even decades to change the curriculum, leaving training toiling in the wake of technological change. Worse, the system churns out lots of skilled blue collar workers suitable for the super- engineering businesses that made German industry great (luxury cars, machine tools). But it chums out relatively few lesser skilled but flexible workers able to switch easily from one task to another, which is what is needed now by businesses using intelligent computer-controlled machinery. Worse still, it churns out even fewer low-skilled (and therefore cheap) workers that German businesses need to cut labor costs. Meanwhile German training programmes outside the dual-education system show the same gloomy results as everywhere else. The OECD reported research that evaluated four German programmes two offering further training and two re training for the unemployed. The result: "No type of training was found to have any significant impact on the flows out of either short- or long term unemployment, nor on the flows into unemployment."