Premature dissolution of training contracts - one-sided perspective dominates public debate

The rate of dissolved contracts in dual vocational education and training is a key figure that is of considerable educational policy interest. It indicates potential risks of failure and inefficiency within the dual VET system. Notwithstanding this, the dissolution rate is not a dropout rate, and contract dissolutions should not exclusively be viewed as failure on the part of the trainees. Current developments in the rate of dissolution and the various phenomena that lie behind dissolved contracts form the object of the present article.

The rate of dissolution for the reporting year 2012 lies within the usual range of fluctuation over the past two decades. Since the beginning of the 1990's, the dissolution rate has been between 20 and 25 percent of training contracts begun within the dual system¹. The rate for 2012 is 24.4 percent, unchanged compared to the previous year. The high degree of attention that this topic is currently attracting cannot, therefore, be explained by changes in the rate of dissolution itself andvery much needs to be viewed within the context of the debate surrounding the risks of a shortage of skilled workers in the wake of demographic developments and of the increasing tendency of school leavers to seek to enter higher education.

The figure shows that the rate of dissolved contracts clearly fluctuates over the course of time along with the situation on the training places market (cf. also UHLY 2013). If the position on the training places market improves from the point of view of the trainees (a rise in the ratio between the number of places on offer and the demand for places), the opportunities for alternative training arrangements also increase. Trainees who are dissatisfied with a training arrangement they have entered into² are then more likely to dissolve their training contract. It is also conceivable that in times when the situation on the training places market is deteriorating from the point of view of the companies, i.e. an increase in the ratio between supply and demand, the recruitment of less preferred applicants who exhibit a higher risk of contract dissolution is more likely.

Although it is constantly emphasised that not every contract dissolution represents a final dropout from training when the dissolution rates calculated by BIBB are published, dissolution rates are often referred to as "training dropout" rates. An article published in the newspaper "Die Welt" on 25 January 2013, for example, carried the headline "One in four trainees drop out of their apprenticeship.Many apprentices in Germany do not stay the course. The dropout rate has reached its highest level since reunification."³ Interpreting the rate of dissolved contracts as a dropout rate is wrong on two counts. The rate of dissolution is not a "dropout rate" and certainly does not signify the proportion of "trainees" abandoning training altogether. For this reason, the statement: "One in four trainees drop out of their apprenticeship" was voted the most misleading statistic of April 2013⁴. Why is it important to differentiate between contract dissolution and training dropout? Various phenomena are concealed behind the rate of contract dissolutions which are statistically measured.There are various ways of differentiating between types of contract dissolutions. Differentiation according to further course of training would appear to be of particular interest in this regard. Depending on the subsequent course pursued, contract dissolutions are of varying relevance to trainees, the companies providing training, the economy and society as a whole.

Unfortunately, the Vocational Education and Training Statistics do not provide a basis for differentiation between these types of contract dissolutions⁵. We do know, however, that for a large part of trainees premature dissolution of a training contract does not represent a training dropout in terms of exiting the dual system.A BIBB study conducted in 2002 (cf. SCHÖNGEN 2003) and various more recent investigations in individual regions and chamber districts (cf. e.g. PIENING et al. 2012 and ERNST/SPEVACEK 2012) indicate that approximately half of trainees with dissolved contracts conclude a new training contract within the dual system within a relatively short period of time following such a contract dissolution.This shows that these premature contract dissolutions do not constitute dropping out of dual vocational education and training. In addition, the majority of trainees (around 60%) who stay in the dual system following a contract dissolution remain in the same occupation. This means that most contract dissolutions merely represent switching to another company providing training rather than a change of occupation. Of the remaining 50 percent of contract dissolutions, only some represent a final dropout from training (cf. Table).

The prevailing image of young people as "training dropouts" who lack apprenticeship entry maturity and perseverance is a one-sided and narrow view of the complex and diverse phenomenon of "premature contract dissolutions". Not every premature dissolution should be considered as a failure on the part of trainees or indeed as failure of any kind. Measures aimed at the young people themselves and which address career choice or training capability are therefore not sufficient. There needs to be a focus on the training capability of all stakeholders. The quality of training and the way in which conflicts are dealt with also influence the risk of contract dissolutions. More attention needs to be paid in future to the stability of training arrangements (cf. in this regard also the Swiss project STABIL⁶).

ALEXANDRA UHLY,
Research associate in the "Vocational Training Supply and Demand/Training Participation" Division at BIBB

Translation from the German original (published in BWP 6/2013): Martin Stuart Kelsey, Global Sprachteam Berlin