國外編輯部/日本古錢教育系統 彌補了技術缺工

 

作者:Blaine Harden

編譯:陳嵩仁、陳采華

日本古錢教育系統 彌補了技術缺工

每年日本約有1%的15歲的學子進入高等專門學校(簡稱高專)裡全力投入訓練,學子們不斷學習,從組裝機器人到寫入軟體、測試二極管與學習英文,  甚至弄髒雙手在工廠粗活中磨練,而等待他們的,是源源不絕的工作機會。

高專以「傳授深入專門的學藝,育成職業必要的能力」為教育目的,此制度類似於臺灣教育中的五專,修業年限五年(商船相關學科為五年又六個月),相當於高中的三年加上短期大學的兩年。畢業後授予副學士學位。

儘管日本近年經濟成長停滯,加上人口逐年萎縮,但他們卻有大量的就業機會。根據高專人員指出,經過五年標準課培訓程,從這57間高專畢業的學生,將會有20多個就業機會等著他們。而其他繼續兩年進階課程的學生,甚至可以達到30多個,這些高專在日本被統稱為「Kosen古錢」。古錢泛指在古代曾被各國使用的貨幣,目前古錢幣已經不再發行,存量稀少且不在市面上流通,所以具有很高的收藏與考古價值。

來到距東京車程約一小時的八王子市(Hachioji),我們就讀於古錢學校的訪談者黑川(Kikaru Kurokawa)表示,目前離畢業還有一年多,但已經有工作在等他了。這位充滿抱負的化學家,14歲時就在家附近的泥水坑裡測試酸雨。而等著他的,是三得利旗下的釀造和蒸餾部門,負責進行水質劃分,三得利株式會社是日本的一家以生產和銷售啤酒、洋酒、軟飲料為主要業務的老牌企業。

古錢透過課堂中學術與技能的融合,解決了日本教育體系的不足之處。許多國家極力提倡的普及教育,因此造成所謂的「技術鴻溝」(Skill gap)。獲得學位的學生,往往忽視該有的實作能力,只一昧追求錢多事少離家近的工作。

政府的國立大學金融管理中心研究部主管金子元久(Motohisa Kaneko)表示:「在日本,主流偏好填鴨式教育,缺乏實際學習指導。舉例來說,主修電子學的畢業生,連最基本的三用電表操作都不太熟悉。」

困擾著日本的「技術鴻溝」問題也正席捲美國。根據2011年由哈佛大學教育研究生的研究來看,美國20~24歲年輕人自2000年以來就業比例從74%下降到62%,自1930年來從未見過的低迷水平。這些都是廣設大學的後遺症,也是大多數阻礙美國青年投入就業市場的元凶。

根據人口普查數據顯示,至20世紀中期,大約只有40%的美國人擁有大學本科學歷,這也呼應了前面研究報告的說法,大學教育並不是提升就業機會的良藥。

「我們丟下了很多孩子」喬治城大學教育勞工中心主任Anthony P. Carnevale說,「美國高中都是為大專以上學歷做準備,但這並非適用每個人。在這段期間,這些孩子喪失了與現實工作接軌的機會。」

讓學生擁有豐厚新資的最佳途徑,是讓學生留在學校,接受以工作為導向的學習。根據最近兩項研究指出,大多工業化國家在強調職業教育的程度遠遠超過美國。日本在1961年因為因應產業需求的關係而發明了「古錢系統」。這對汽車製造業者特別有影響,因為隨著戰後的經濟開始繁榮,造成工程師極度短缺,因此企業推動政府建造學校來培養更多所需人才。

實質效益在八王子市非常成功,學子們解決該地近1000家企業人才短缺問題。幾乎所有的學生在他們的第四年,都會離開校園在並在當地的公司進行無薪實習,而這些公司也發聘書請這些學生畢業後工作。根據數據顯示,五年制的古錢畢業生收入大約相當於美國學士的薪水,而七年制(古錢再進修兩年)畢業生收入則相當於美國碩士。

「古錢把學生放在獲取技術和真正就業的關鍵路口上」,微軟教育計劃副總裁Anthony Salcito說到,與古錢學校合作,培養學生在軟件上的開發,而日本為了跟上全球化的腳步,許多古錢畢業生被派往國外,以幫助管理日本獨資工廠。

與日本的高中生相比,古錢學生往往忽視的是文科。「對於我們的學生來說,過多的文科課程是一種時間和人才的浪費」電機工程教授兼古錢副院長Tomohiko Ohtsuka說。(延伸閱讀:國外編輯部/人文無用?從安倍政府推技職、欲廢文科說起..

通過這項政策,日本高等教育更是一枝獨秀,年輕人完成高等教育比率排名世界第三,遠超過第16名的美國,但許多日本大學面臨著人口挑戰,低於15歲的學生數已經連續下降30年了,有些學校正面臨被迫關閉的危機。 但目前學生短缺問題尚未影響到古錢學校,至今,所有古錢校院學生數量約5萬名,且通常以筆試為錄取基準,有些則是透過老師或校長推薦。日本政府每年支付約25000(日)元給每位古錢學生,而學生只需交納3500元的學費。

「父母知道自己的孩子畢業後會有好工作」國家古錢系統總裁Yujiro Hayashi說,「 雖然日本各地學生​​人數一直下降,但我們在招生方面將不會有問題。」

 

【作者:Blaine Harde】

美國記者哈登〈Blaine Harden〉常以記者熟練、精湛的手法,寫出在教育、人權方面前所未有的報導。曾替北韓脫北者申東赫的遭遇發表專書《逃離第14號集中營》,不但成為年度暢銷書,後來還被翻譯成27國文字。並曾於TEDxRainier說出北韓的不平等對待,並表達支持。

 

With workplace training, Japan’s Kosen colleges bridge ‘skills gap’

Every year, about 1 percent of Japanese 15-year-olds turn away from high school. Then they turn into full-time nerds-in-training, enrolling in colleges where they make robots and write software, test diodes and study English, dirty their hands on factory floors and wait for job offers to come flooding in.

Flood in they do, even though Japan’s economy is stagnant and its population is shrinking. Graduates of the standard five-year course at Japan’s 57 national colleges of technology, collectively known as Kosen, can each expect about 20 job offers, school officials say. Students who stay on for two years of advanced study receive about 30 offers.

Kikaru Kurokawa will not graduate until next year from the Kosen here in Hachioji, an hour west of Tokyo. But a job is already waiting for him. The aspiring chemist, who at 14 was testing for acid rain in mud puddles near his house, will go to work this spring in the

water-quality division of Sun­tory, a brewing and distilling conglomerate.

Kosen are hybrids of high schools and colleges that serve a small but important slice of the higher-education market, attracting students — often from working-class families — who combine an instinctive passion for building gadgets with above-average aptitudes in science and math.

By fusing classroom rigor with workplace know-how, these colleges fix a failing of high schools and universities in Japan — and in the United States.

It’s called the “skills gap,” and it’s the bitter fruit of educational systems in both countries that aspire to make college accessible for all but that often produce students who, if they do get a degree, focus too narrowly on abstractions while neglecting the hands-on competence necessary for landing jobs that pay middle-class wages.

“In Japan, the mainstream education system is extending childhood and not giving practical training,” said Motohisa Kaneko, director of research at the government’s Center for National University Finance and Management. “Even the basic competence of university graduates in engineering is rather dubious.”

The skills gap that troubles Japan is tormenting the United States. Since 2000, the percentage of U.S. young adults ages 20 to 24 with jobs has fallen from 74 percent to 62 percent, a level not seen since the 1930s, according to a 2011 study by Harvard University’s Graduate School of Education. It concluded that the “college for all” system that emerged in the United States after World War II is failing the majority of American youths.

By the time they reach their mid-20s, only about 40 percent of Americans earn an associate or bachelor’s degree, census data show.

“We are leaving a lot of kids behind,” said Anthony P. Carnevale, director of Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce. “High school in America is about preparing for a college degree that most young people will not get, and in the meantime, these kids are disconnected from anything that is real in the world of work.”

A potential cure for what ails secondary and higher education in the United States and Japan looks a lot like what Kosen colleges have been doing for a half-century: requiring high school-age students to spend time in an actual workplace, integrating abstract subjects such as algebra with the use of cutting-edge machinery, and including local industry in the design of a constantly updated curriculum.

Work-based learning is the best way for the majority of students to stay in school and find jobs that pay well, according to two recent studies. Most industrialized countries stress vocational education far more than the United States does.

Japan invented the Kosen system in 1961 because industry, particularly automakers, demanded it. As the economy began a postwar boom, there was a desperate shortage

of engineers. Corporations pushed the government to create colleges that would churn them out.

In the Hachioji school, students work to solve real-world problems for the area’s nearly 1,000 companies. Last year, a chemical-engineering student came up with a low-cost, nontoxic solution — made with persimmon juice — that replaces a toxic chemical used to make chrome for cars. Nearly all students leave campus during their fourth year to work as unpaid interns at local companies that later compete to hire them. Five-year graduates earn roughly the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor’s degree, while seven-year grads earn the equivalent of a master’s.

“Kosen put students at the critical intersection of acquiring technical skills for real employability,” said Anthony Salcito, a vice president for education programs at Microsoft, which works with Kosen colleges to train students in software development.

As Japan races to keep up with globalization, many Kosen graduates are being sent abroad to help manage Japanese-owned factories.

What Kosen students tend to ignore, in comparison with high school students in Japan, are the liberal arts.

“For our students, too much liberal arts is a waste of time and talent,” said Tomohiko Ohtsuka, a professor of electrical engineering and vice president of the Kosen here.

By one measure, Japanese higher education is thriving: Japan ranks third in the world in college completion among young adults, well ahead of the 16th-ranked United States. But many Japanese universities face demographic challenges. The number of children younger than 15 has fallen for 30 consecutive years. Some schools might be forced to close.

The shortage of young people has yet to harm Kosen colleges, which serve about 50,000 students and have about 1.7 applicants for each available seat. Students are usually admitted on the basis of a written test. Some get in on the recommendation of a teacher or principal. The government pays about $25,000 a year per Kosen student, while students pay $3,500 each.

“Parents know their children will get good jobs when they graduate,” said Yujiro Hayashi, president of the national Kosen system. “While the number of students across Japan will continue to decrease, we anticipate no problem in finding students.”

 

【Author:Blaine Harde】

Blaine Harden is an American author and journalist. His most recent book is The Great Leader and the Fighter Pilot (2015). It’s about the rise of the tyrant who created North Korea and a young fighter pilot who stole his way to freedom with the help of a Russian-made MiG-15.

 

圖片來源:commons.wikimedia.org

原文刊登於《Washington Post》,經作者Blaine Harden授權編譯,未經許可不得轉載

 

 

國外編輯部/惡質詐財的職訓單位,看看澳洲政府如何解決他!

 

作者/ Mary Leahy

編譯/ 陳嵩仁

[tabs]
[tab title=”中文”]

惡質詐財的職訓單位,看看澳洲政府如何解決他!

 

澳洲的職業教育簡直是一攤爛水!即使政府加強監督管理,試著拋出一些措施來避免這攤爛水帶來負面影響,但提出的措施都是治標不治本,完全無法解決核心問題。真正該省思的,是如何調整職業教育的經費與管理模式。

這些職訓機構如何運作?

許多消息指出,在職業教育和訓練(VET)存在著鑽漏洞和尋租(編按:透過賄賂、腐化、走私、及黑市等的非法行為來追求利潤的方式,創造了少數持有特權者,透過不平等競爭方式,憑權力取得超額收入的機會,此種行為即稱為尋租活動。)等行為。有些職訓機構的手法實在欺人太甚,白白讓數千名學生報名課程卻損失受教的權益。他們一貫手法如下:

  • 申請公司行號
  • 盡可能招攬學生註冊或申請多項課程
  • 要學生申請VET-FEE HELP學貸
  • 向政府申請全額補助
  • 只要學生在選課前註冊,業者都能獲得補助款

 

假職訓真斂財?

有些不肖業者透過鑽漏洞來獲得大量利潤,甚至有些課程收取$10000澳幣的高額學費,這些業者完全不需負擔任何成本與風險。根據統計,VET-FEE HELP發出的補助款,自2014年的1.7億澳幣,在2015年爆增到2.4億澳幣,但多數職訓機構畢業率卻不到10%。

業者為了提高學生文憑錄取率,迫使學生在極短時間內考取,就不用繼續開辦接下來的課程。這種手段就是俗稱的「打勾轉稅(Tick and Flick)」。但光是在維多利亞州(位於澳洲東岸南部),一年就有將近9,500個資格被註銷。所以實行了延後發放補助款的時間,從”開始上課”改到”課程結束”才給予款項。這個舉動雖然能強制業者提供課程給學生學習,卻無法阻止業者繼續鑽漏洞的行徑。

早就預測到的後果

或許會有人說,當初沒有人會想到變成這個樣子。但這是錯的! 知名學者Leesa Wheelahan一直以來主張著這種改革只會走向競相趨劣的死胡同。同時許多相關議題也在媒體與業界中廣泛討論著。

公營職訓中心TAFE尤其深受影響,市占率大幅下滑。同樣狀況也發生在其他私人職訓機構,真正在職業訓練上有所付出的機構,也不敵能夠提供更快更容易取得文憑的競爭對手。

政府如何應對這個問題?

面對這些問題,政府已開始實行措施,首先不再允許職訓機構發放獎勵(像是筆電和iPad),再來,延緩給職訓機構的補助款,業者將在課程全部結束後才能收到款項。

貸部分則不再透過職訓機構來申請,改由教育和職業訓練部接手處裡。這個政策值得我們給個掌聲。

澳洲是怎麼走到這一步?

目前澳洲職訓現況是經過多次教改而來,原本教改的初衷是希望能提供學生更多較好的選擇以及更優質的環境。但自2009年及2012的澳大洲國會(COAG)協議後,澳洲各地以需求導向為首的職訓系統就此立足。

當時是希望給予學生更大的選擇空間,使職訓機構能隨著學生和雇主的需求快速調整。其中維多利亞州是第一個響應改革的州,但急遽上升的補貼金,最後毫不意外的導致維多利亞州的預算爆炸。當時的政府承認這種模式無法改變,唯一能改善的,只剩下補貼金額及融資利率的調整。

直到2012年5月,幾次大幅度的預算削減,其他州才緊隨其後。以維多利亞模式作為借鏡,希望避免重蹈覆轍。也因為政策面的不確定性,間接形成鑽漏洞制度,讓職訓機構惡意引導學生註冊獲得更多補助款。

職業訓練過去長期被邊緣化,其一原因是人們只重視教育的結果而忽略學習過程,剝奪所需要的就業知識,最後導致人們對職業教育的存在意義產生了許多質疑。

關鍵問題

對於評估一個職訓課程的好壞,在職業教育方面一直是個問題,往往只能在課程結束後,才能加以斷定;另一問題是整個職業教育是建立在有缺陷的假設上。有一研究機構已證明我們不是一個理性的經濟體,我們的決定都受到框架效應的影響、我們的喜好是不固定的、我們對於風險評估是考量在某些特定情況下所得到的機會,加上當下有無獎勵並納入所需的成本所綜合形成。這些研究結果都挑戰著以消費者政策作為支撐的假設。

許多研究針對年輕人在學習和工作之間抉擇,在某些經濟條件限制下,他們只能放棄學習機會。

對於那些濫用人們心理來獲利的機構,我們應該公佈並加以譴責,因為這些漏洞才是助長不肖業者的問題所在。懲誡那些有問題的補助和管理模式才能治本。

展望未來

我們必須重新審視職業教育。政府應立即採取措施監控VET-FEE HELP學貸申請過程,且要解除劣質職訓單位經營權。希望各國能重視並採取行動,例如,維多利亞州的職業教育與訓練經費審查。然而,相當多的風險仍然存在,當職訓單位的「利潤」減少時,可能引發服務品質下降,當這樣連鎖效應發生時,學生便難以判斷課程的價值。

是時候開始改革職業了!建立一個嚴謹的教育系統,讓那些不肖業者沒有機會鑽取漏洞,並透過量身打造的課程,來強化每個人在職業訓練生涯所需要的專業知識、技巧和能力。打破常規,用特長贏取這場戰役,這種學習方式才能為職業生涯做好準備,發展無限潛能。

 

【作者:Mary Leahy

Mary Leahy女士將教育機會、受訓機會及工作機會等議題視為她研究教學的主要目標 。

具體研究方向包括:教育部門間的接口、升學及畢業至就業間的過渡期、技職教育和培訓(VET)、兩性議題、婦女與工作、政策上哲學基礎、Nussbaum和Sen所提倡的能力取向論點、還有關於選擇和制定決策的學說。

近期研究項目包括:新南威爾士州的年輕人高中畢業後的目標、VET的培訓基金流向、評估非以基礎能力取向得證照可行性,並且深入調查升學及就業管道等相關議題。

[/tab]
[tab title=”English”]

Reforming vocational education: it’s time to end the exploitation of vulnerable people

 

Australia’s vocational education sector is a mess.

Tightening regulation and tweaking some of the settings will contain the damage, but these measures alone will not address deeper problems in the sector.

Real, sustained improvement requires rethinking the funding and regulatory models but also the purpose and idea of vocational education.

How the business model works

There is clear evidence of rorting and rent-seeking in the vocational education and training (VET) sector.

The behaviour of some training providers, agents and brokers is nothing short of despicable. Thousands of students are being signed up to courses that they have little or no chance of completing.

The business model is fairly simple:

  • Register as a training provider and ensure your students have access to VET FEE HELP income-contingent loans.
  • Sign up as many students as possible for single or double diplomas.
  • The student takes on a VET FEE HELP loan to defer payment of course fees.
  • The training provider receives the VET FEE HELP payment from the government.
  • As long as the student is enrolled beyond the census date, the training provider is paid.
  • Even if the course is never started, the provider will receive funds from the government and the student is liable for the debt.
Chasing the dollar

This has given reprehensible providers a stream of revenue without the expense or trouble of providing much in the way of education.

Fees have grown, with a number of providers charging over $10,000 for a diploma.

The figures are staggering. A total of $2.4 billion in VET-FEE HELP was paid to training providers in 2015 (up to November 15), a big increase from $1.7 billion in 2014.

Yet graduation rates for many providers were abysmal, well under 10%.

Other providers do graduate their students, pushing them through qualifications in improbably short times. The approach has been described as “tick and flick”.

In Victoria alone, around 9,500 qualifications were revoked in one year.

The suggestion that payment should be shifted from when a student starts a course to when they complete it will not prevent the rorting, although it may force some providers to at least go through the motions of offering an educational program.

This outcome was predicted

Some shake their heads and say that no one could have foreseen what has happened. But it was predicted.

Prominent academic Leesa Wheelahan consistently argued that the reforms would result in a race to the bottom. Others expressed similar views in the media and within the sector.

The TAFE institutes have been hit hard, with a significant reduction in market share. Conditions are also difficult for any private operators with a genuine commitment to vocational education when competitors offer quicker, easier qualifications.

How have governments responded?

Governments have taken some action. Training providers are no longer permitted to provide incentives such as laptops and iPads, although there is evidence the practice has continued.

Providers will no longer receive up-front payment for the whole course. Funding for the loans has been frozen.

The Department of Education and Training is preparing to receive loan applications rather than leaving the training providers to process these.

These initiatives are to be applauded.

Key government reviews into funding, quality and the private training providers have also been undertaken. The extent of their impact on government policy is still emerging.

Alternative options being considered

Other options are being debated across the sector. These include risk-based approaches to regulation of providers and/or qualifications.

It has been suggested that students should be charged a minimum fee so they have “skin in the game”.

Questions are being asked about the wisdom of allowing the same organisation to train, assess and issue a qualification.

There is interest in finding reliable ways of distinguishing between providers that seek to deliver high-quality education and training, from operations seeking to milk public funding.

There is also renewed interest in the practice of teaching, which has been marginalised over the past 30 years.

Significant profits have been extracted but scrutiny from various regulatory bodies and the media has had an impact.

A number of large training businesses are in serious trouble. The Vocation group has folded and Australian Careers Network’s shares have been suspended since October. More will follow.

How did we get here?

The current situation has been built by layers of reform intended to create a vibrant, responsive sector that provided greater choice and flexibility for students.

The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) agreements in 2009 and 2012 led to the implementation of demand-driven training systems across Australia.

The idea was to give students greater choice and make providers more responsive to students and employers.

Victoria was the first state to implement the reform. Rapid growth in subsidised training rather predictably led to a massive budget blowout.

The government’s commitment to the market model was ironclad, leaving adjustment to the subsidy or funding rates as its only response.

A dramatic cut in May 2012 was followed by other significant reductions. Other states followed, introducing variations of the Victorian model, all hoping to avoid the pitfalls.

The lack of certainty encouraged providers to game the system and direct students into the courses that attracted higher levels of subsidy. In some cases this was a matter of survival. This problem was compounded once access to VET FEE HELP was expanded.

Longer-term shifts in the sector have also impacted the quality of vocational education.

The marginalisation of teaching, which is starting to be reversed, is one factor. Another is a form of outcomes-based education that does not recognise development and growth and is stripped of the knowledge we need for employment and citizenship. This raises fundamental questions about the purpose and function of vocational education.

Key issues

One of the problems with a market in education is that only after the course has been completed can the quality of education and training be assessed.

Another issue is that the vocational education market is based on flawed assumptions about the way we form preferences and make decisions.

There is a body of research that demonstrates that we do not operate as rational economic agents. We are all influenced by the way options are framed. Our preferences are not fixed. Our assessment of risk is shaped by our circumstances, particularly the opportunities available to us and the timing of any rewards and costs.

These findings challenge the assumptions underpinning user-choice policies.

Choosing a VET course is complex. There are five levels of qualifications, thousands of providers and specific rules about entitlement to government subsidy and VET FEE HELP loans.

A number of research projects are examining young people’s choices about study and work. It is apparent that the difficult circumstances some face limit the meaningful opportunities available to them.

The behaviour of providers and agents that exploit the hopes of people seeking to improve their prospects should continue to be exposed and condemned. But we also need to examine fundamentally flawed funding and regulatory models that allow and reward the exploitation.

Looking forward

Measures to control VET-FEE HELP will rein in the worst excesses.

Some operators will leave the sector. Others are reviewing their policies and practices. Hopefully governments will act on recommendations such as those produced by the Victorian VET Funding Review.

However, considerable risks remain when there is pressure to extract a profit and limited opportunities to cut costs without compromising the quality of provision.

This is compounded when students are unable to judge the value of their course until it is too late.

Politicians, policymakers and commentators need to ask whether the market can deliver what was promised by reforms in this sector and by the recently adopted competition policy.

We also need to reconsider the type of vocational education developed and delivered in Australia.

Some researchers argue for a more coherent approach to vocational development. Qualifications will be organised within broad vocational streams such as engineering or care work. Social partners will play a role in identifying the capabilities that will underpin qualifications. Courses will be designed to develop the knowledge, skills and attributes a person needs to work in their vocational stream.

In this way people will be prepared for a career, not just for a job that may be transformed or disappear. The approach is designed to build trust in the quality and relevance of qualifications.

A system that demands robust vocational education will not be attractive to those focused on extracting excessive profits.

Wasting public funds is a serious matter, but more troubling is the trashing of the vocational education system and the exploitation of vulnerable people.

 

【Author:Mary Leahy

Mary Leahy’s research and teaching focuses on access to education, training and employment. Her specific research interests include: pathways; the interface between education sectors; transitions within education and between education and employment; vocational education and training (VET); gender; women and work, the philosophical underpinnings of policy; Nussbaum and Sen’s capabilities approach; and theories on choice, preference formation and decision making.

Recent research projects include: post-school destinations of young people in NSW; mapping funding flows in the VET sector; assessing the feasibility of non-competency based qualifications; and investigating pathways within education and between education and employment.

[/tab]
[/tabs]

 

圖片來源:UNAMID@flickr

原文刊登於《The Conversation》,經作者Mary Leahy授權編譯,未經許可不得轉載

 

重量不重質,每況愈下的日本私立大學

 

作者/Rong Zhang、Dennis McCorna

編譯/李明洋

[tabs]
[tab title=”中文”]

重量不重質,每況愈下的日本私立大學

高等教育的重要性在於促進經濟成長是眾所皆知的事,而且,在全球化、人口及科技的不斷變化衝擊著國家經濟的此時此刻,更加突顯出了高等教育的重要性。為了保持競爭力,一個國家就必須提升生產力,並且採取鼓勵創新的政策。日本正是這樣的一個國家。在經歷過前所未有的自然及人為動盪後,日本的經濟、社會及代表國家的精神均遭到極大的衝擊。

自2012年重新掌權後,現任首相安倍晉三乃祭出了所謂的「安倍經濟學(Abenomics)」,希望透過貨幣、財政和結構性政策這3支箭來重振日本的經濟。然而,最近經濟學界的權威人士對於安倍經濟學過去對日本經濟的疲弱表現給予了貶抑的評價。由於安倍先前祭出的兩支箭,也就是貨幣和財政政策,都沒能起到刺激經濟的效用,因此,安倍政策的支持者如今也只能將希望寄託在第3支箭上,也就是針對企業和勞動市場法則進行結構性的改革,同時也強調提升已然落後於歐美的日本高等教育品質,以提升國際競爭力。

然而,究竟應該如何提升日本的高等教育品質,儼然成為發生變化的人口結構,以及日益惡化的政府財政所應面對的主要課題。儘管包括整併國立大學、建立認證評鑑制度、擴大競爭性資源的分配,以及促進國際化等許多措施均已到位,然而,對於政府補助日漸減少的私立大學而言,這些措施卻未必具有正向的作用。此外,全球化已導致教育環境趨於惡化,而促使大學無不將招生重點放在學生的數量上,而非學生的素質上。

日本著名社會學家刈谷武彥認為日本高等教育的現況是一種「日本病(Japanese disease)」並表示「除了少數幾所名校外,進大學已不再需要特別競爭,而且學生也喪失了讀書的動力。」之所以會有這樣的結果,主要是因為有許多私立大學沒有能力吸引到足夠的學生,使其面臨財政困難所致。

前多摩大學校長Gregory Clark也指出,私立大學必須確保招收到一定數量的學生,以維持學校財務的正常運作。然而,在2013學年度,將近半數的4年制私立大學無法招收到足夠的學生,以填補彼等學校的固定學生缺額。由於私立大學佔所有高等教育機構的75%以上,而且許多大專校院在過去10餘年來也相繼升格為4年制大學,致使這個問題的嚴重性更形複雜。

為了避免破產,並維持財務的正常運作,私立大學最常採用的策略就是向中國及其他亞洲國家的外國留學生招生,以填補空缺這個策略十分迎合日本政府所喊出的,在2020年以前招收30萬名國際留學生的「30萬國際留學生計畫(300,000 International Students Plan)」。

由於私立大學將這些國外留學生視為學校存續的關鍵,所以許多大學都致力於強化提供給國際留學生的服務,例如提供大量的日語教育課程,提供生活問題的支持,幫忙解決住房問題,以及協助在日本找工作等。本質上來講,學生就是大學的客戶,而大學就等同於產業。因此,教導學生的基本目標就是要滿足學生的需求,也可以將之視為讓學生知道他必然能夠拿到畢業證書。

然而,這種只著重學生數量的操作手法,意味著學術上的學習並不是大學裡最重要的事舉凡任何對日本高等教育知之甚悉的人都知道,這樣的情況並不是什麼新鮮事,因為大多數的日本大學只要學生一被錄取,就不會對學生做多少要求。這樣的現象已經被許多著作提及,而且早已是眾所皆知的事。一旦學生進入大學,他們就不會讀書,只知道玩。對大多數的學生來說,大學生涯是在步入職場之前,唯一相對自由且得以悠閒的時光。

目前,針對「日本病」所提出的處方是一些針對日本學生進行補救教學,以及針對國外留學生進行日語特殊訓練的特殊教育計畫。這些內容同時也被拿來訓練大學新生獨立學習,以及激勵他們對校園生活產生興趣。此外,也提供學生攸關校園生活中各種面向的特殊指導方針,包括課程選修、學分取得、學費資助申請、實習及就業諮詢等。重點放在激勵學生,期望他們能夠投入更多的精力,並且努力學習。

雖然斷定這種處方的療效還言之過早,但是滋賀大學校長佐和隆光指出,之所以會有為數眾多的外國留學生前來日本攻讀大學和職業課程,主要是因為他們在本國的高等教育升學過程中受挫所致。這樣的論點正足以支持目前日本大學因不穩定的財務基礎,致使其不論學生的學業成就如何,只要付得起學費都(願意)招收的現象。

雖然經濟和人口結構的變化均超出了高等教育機構所能掌控的範疇,但在各個層面努力阻止教育品質的快速惡化,以解決現今日本私立大學所面臨的嚴重問題乃是當務之急。

在可見的將來,我們可以想像得到一所學術品質低劣的大學將不利於新生的招收,尤以外國留學生的招收為最,從而加劇學校財務的危機。現在正是日本大學和政治人物應該針對這些問題想出新的創新方法,真正地去解決問題,而不是只想要維持現狀。要讓私立大學做出改變,唯有讓他們瞭解到,維持現狀的結果只會是每況愈下(race to the bottom)。到最後,所有人都是輸家。

 

【作者介紹】

本文第一作者Rong Zhang博士為西日本工業大學(Nishinippon Institute of Technology)副教授,在日本執教超過15年。第二作者Dennis McCornac博士。丹尼斯McCornac博士為馬里蘭羅耀拉大學(Loyola University Maryland)訪問教授,曾在日本和越南的大學擔任教職,對亞洲教育極為熟稔。

[/tab]
[tab title=”English”]

Private Universities in Japan: A Race to the Bottom?

The importance of higher education in promoting economic growth is a well-known axiom of development and this role is only expected to increase as changes in globalization, demography and technology impact national economies. To remain competitive, a nation will need to improve productivity and adopt policies that encourage innovation. One nation requiring such actions is Japan, which has faced unprecedented upheavals, both natural and manmade, that have significantly impacted its economy, society and national psyche.

Following a return to power in 2012, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, has pinned hopes on his economic policy dubbed “Abenomics,” a three-pronged approach to reflate the economy through monetary, fiscal and structural policies. Recently, however, economic pundits have been having a field day downplaying Abenomics following the weak economic performance of the Japanese economy over the past quarter. The first two arrows, monetary and fiscal policies, have been less than stimulating, and supporters of Abe’s strategy have now pinned their hope on the third “arrow”:  structural reforms including changes in corporate and labor market regulations as well as emphasis on improving international competitiveness. This includes improving the quality of higher education in Japan, which has lagged behind its American and European counterparts.

How to improve higher education in Japan, however, has become a major task given the changing demographics and the dire straits of the government’s fiscal position. While a number of initiatives such as incorporating national universities, initiating a certified evaluation system, expanding competitive resource allocations, and promoting internationalization are already in place, these initiatives have not necessarily positively impacted private universities, which have suffered from continued declines in financial support from the national government. In addition, one could also argue that globalization has contributed to the deterioration of the educational environment, as quantity rather than quality of students has become the focus of university admission.

Kariya Takehiko, a well-known sociologist, terms the current situation in Japanese higher education the “Japanese disease” and notes that “with the exception of a small number of elite colleges, getting into university is no longer particularly competitive and students have lost their incentive to study.” A major factor contributing to this ailment is large number of private universities in financial difficulties due to the inability to attract enough students.

Gregory Clark, former president of Tama University, has noted private universities need to secure a certain number of students to maintain themselves as viable economic entities. During the 2013 academic year, however, slightly fewer than one-half of private four-year universities were unable to enroll enough students to fill their quota for a fixed number of students. The extent of the problem is further complicated by the fact private institutions comprise over 75 percent of all institutions and over the past decade a number of junior colleges have been restructured into four-year institutions.

One common strategy adopted by private institutions to avoid bankruptcy and remain financial viable is to recruit foreign students, primarily from China and other parts of Asia, to fill the open spaces. These efforts to increase the number of international students are in line with the Japanese government’s “300,000 International Students Plan,” which sets a long-term goal of having 300,000 registered international students at universities by 2020.

As private universities look to these foreign students as keys to survival, a large number are working hard to strengthen services for international students, such as providing substantial Japanese-language education courses, support for daily life issues, and help with housing and job-seeking in Japan. Essentially, students are the clients of the universities and higher education is an industry. Thus, the fundamental goal of student instruction is the satisfaction of the students, which can be looked at as implying students need to be assured that they will eventually graduate with a diploma.

This focus on quantity of students, however, implies that academic learning may not be the top priority. And anyone familiar with Japanese higher education knows this is not a new trend, as most Japanese universities have always demanded little of their students once they are enrolled. This phenomenon has been noted by the authors’ experiences, and is a well-known feature of Japanese higher education. Once students get into college, they do not study but play. For most, it is their only stretch of relative freedom and leisure before entering the workforce.

Some of the current prescriptions to treat the “Japanese disease” are special education programs consisting of remedial education for Japanese students and special training in the Japanese language for foreign students. Training is also being provided to foster new students’ independence in learning and stimulate their interest in campus life. Special guidance regarding all aspects of campus life, including class registration, credit acquisition, and applications for financial support, internships, and employment inquiries is also made available. Emphasis is placed on motivating students in the hope that students will devote more energy and effort to the task of learning.

The efficacy of such medicines may be too early to determine, but Takamitsu Sawa, president of Shiga University, asserts that the majority of foreign students pursuing undergraduate and vocational curricula in Japan are doing so because they have failed to advance to higher education in their own countries. This supports the contention that universities with insecure economic foundations will admit students almost regardless of their academic achievements or readiness so long as they can pay the fees.

While there is no doubt that economic and demographic changes are beyond the control of the institutions themselves, efforts to staunch the rapid deterioration in educational quality will be required on all fronts to resolve some of the more glaring problems facing private university higher education in Japan today.

Down the road, it is also easy to visualize poor university academic quality being detrimental to the recruitment of new students, in particular foreign students, which would exacerbate the financial crisis further. It is time for universities and politicians to consider new and innovative approaches to these problems, which actually provide solutions rather than maintaining the status quo. Private universities can be the agents of change by understanding that maintaining the status quo will simply result in a grand race to the bottom. And the bottom is a place where no one can win.

【Author】

Dr. Rong Zhang is an Associate Professor at Nishinippon Institute of Technology and has been teaching in Japan for more than 15 years. Dr. Dennis McCornac is a Visiting Affiliate Professor at Loyola University Maryland. He has extensive experience in Asia previously holding university positions in both Japan and Vietnam.

[/tab]
[/tabs]

 

圖片來源:flickr@clio1789

原文經合作媒體:《The Diplomat》授權編譯,未經許可不得轉載

 

國外編輯部/人文無用?從安倍政府推技職、欲廢文科說起…

 

作者/John W. Traphagan

編譯/李苾琳、余欣融

[tabs]
[tab title=”中文”]

人文無用?從安倍政府推技職、欲廢文科說起…

日本NHK針對60所日本國立大學調查指出,其中26所有人文社會科學系的學校已證實未來將計劃廢除或減少招生名額。起因為安倍政府制訂的國立大學改革計劃:大學培育的人才應為「社會所需」。前任文部科學大臣下村博文發信要求日本所有的國立大學,要積極廢除人文社會科學院,或是轉型成自然科學院。

部分國內最富盛名的大學,諸如東京大學、京都大學皆拒絕此要求,滋賀大學校長和隆光澤圭公開譴責負責大學事務的文部科學省,表示這種想法「大逆不道」、而由上位領導者帶頭更是「反智」;然而也有一些國立大學表示能理解文部科學省的政策,他們會停止人文社會科學系的招生,符合法令的要求。

安倍政府的目標是大力推動符合社會需求的「技職教育」,但卻遺漏了一點。安倍只看到「經濟成長」此一社會需求(喔,但經濟學隸屬社會科學,得淘汰了),但卻沒發現人類行為、社會組織、文化藝術等專業,才是「真正有型」地符合社會所需。所有組織的中心都將回歸到「人」,不論是政府、企業、軍事單位,或其他形態的組織,為了讓「人」能有效率地工作,他們得瞭解人類行為的多樣複雜性、文化形塑思想的重要性,並發展具分析及解決隨著人們開始共同工作而不斷產生需求的智能工具。

當然,像日本這樣重視技職教育的工業社會中,讓部分國立大學變得就業導向很合理,但是教育不應該處於欠缺諸如藝術、文學、道德等深度討論的真空狀態。如何詮釋ㄧ個人的世界、如何建立一個人對外在環境的美感、如何與他人互動等等,對於人能作為一個人,抑或成為一名成功的員工都是至關重要的。

安倍政府對人文社會學科的攻擊說來有些諷刺,因為日本政府一直積極地向全世界推銷日本的流行文化。日本未來的宮崎駿會怎麼樣呢,他們能進入日本的國立大學就讀嗎?宮崎駿就讀私立的學習院大學(Akushuin University),雙主修政治和經濟,同時也加入了兒童文學(漫畫)研究社。他的電影享譽國際,在國內也有極高評價,作品反思人類與大自然的衝突、人類社會的複雜性,難以想像他的價值觀沒有受人文社會科學所啟發。

宮崎駿

日本國寶級動畫大師宮崎駿,執導的電影常反映出人類對於自然及科技之間的關係。(圖/Flickr)

 

接受專業培訓、找工作都是很重要的事,然而一個優秀的員工還需要會思考、會分析、會應對,針對各種商業行為提出合乎倫理的做法。這些「技能」看似不是社會所需,卻是能讓一個國家穩定、具備國際競爭力的重要元素。如果沒有賈柏斯的審美哲學,沒有設計師、工程師為他效勞,今天的蘋果會在哪裡呢?

社會需要什麼?不能單用一張財務狀況表就能算出。把人文社會科學從國立大學中排除,就代表此高等教育短視近利,其後也會負面影響日本的國際經濟地位。

 

【作者介紹】John W. Traphagan

德州大學奧斯汀分校宗教系及人類行為系教授

[/tab]
[tab title=”English”]

The Japanese Government’s Attack on the Humanities and Social Sciences

Recent news stories about education in Japan have noted that 26 of the 60 national universities that offer courses in the humanities and social sciences have confirmed they will either close or reduce faculties in these areas. This follows a decree issued by the Japanese government that universities “serve areas that better meet society’s needs” in a letter sent from Education Minister Hakuban Shimomura to all of Japan’s national universities. The letter called on them to take “active steps to abolish [the social sciences and humanities]” or convert them to academic opportunities in the natural sciences.

Some of the country’s most prestigious universities, such as the University of Tokyo and University of Kyoto have refused to comply with the order, and Takamitsu Sawa, president of Shiga University, recently published an op-ed piece in the Japan Times denouncing the ministry’s philosophy, calling its proposals “outrageous” and its leaders “anti-intellectual.” However, several national universities have indicated that they will cease recruiting students to humanities and social science courses and comply with the edict.

The goal expressed by the Abe government is to promote practical vocational education to anticipate the needs of society. But one is left wondering what, exactly, Abe sees as the needs of society beyond economic growth (oh, and economics is a social science that would be eliminated). It is difficult to comprehend how studying human behavior, social organization, culture, and the arts is only tangential to anticipating the needs of society. All organizations involve humans – whether government, industry, the military, or anything else. In order for humans to work effectively and efficiently, they must understand the dimensions of human behavior, must recognize the importance of culture in shaping ideas, and must have the intellectual tools necessary to analyze and address the constant flow of human needs that arise as people work together.

While there is, of course, an important place for vocational education in industrial societies like Japan, and there may well be reasons to shift some of the national universities in Japan to a more vocational orientation, that education should not occur in a vacuum devoid of deep discussions about topics such as art, literature, and ethics. Understanding how to interpret one’s world, how to assess the aesthetics of one’s environment (including the space in which one works), and how to think about interactions with others is fundamental to being human and to being a successful worker/employee and should be addressed thoughtfully in any educational institution – whether or not it is primarily vocational.

There is a certain irony in the Abe government’s attack on the liberal arts, because for some time the government also has been actively promoting exports of the country’s popular culture around the world. What will happen to the future Hayao Miyazakis of Japan – perhaps the most significant icon of contemporary Japanese popular artistic culture around the world – who might attend a national university? Miyazaki attended Gakushin University, which is private, and majored in political science and economics while also participating in the university’s research club on children’s literature (manga). His films, many of which are considered masterpieces both nationally and internationally, show a deep awareness and understanding of the human condition and the nature of conflict, the complexities of human social organization, and the varied ways in which we interpret our world. It is difficult to imagine that his perspective is not at least in part a product of the education he received in economics and political science at university. And, of course, this exploration of humanity comes to us through the powerful aesthetic sensibilities expressed through the worlds created in his drawings.

While gaining vocational training and getting a job is important, good employees are those who can think creatively, understand and interpret the contexts in which they interact with others, and employ an ethical approach to the activities of business and life in general. These are not tangential to vocational training nor to the needs of society, but are central elements in generating a capable and inventive workforce that is able to make any country secure and internationally competitive. Where would Apple be without the aesthetic ideas of Steve Jobs and the designers and engineers who worked for him?

The needs of society, like the needs of individual humans, are not able to be simply calculated on a balance sheet, but involve not only the pragmatics of learning a skill, but equally the pragmatics of learning to live and work with others in a thoughtful, analytical, and ethical manner. Eliminating the social sciences and humanities from national universities represents a stunningly narrow-minded and short-sighted attitude about the purpose and aims of higher education. And it will work against ensuring Japan a strong economic position internationally in the future.

 

【Author】John W. Traphagan

Professor of Religious Studies and Human Dimensions of Organizations at the University of Texas at Austin.

[/tab]
[/tabs]

 

圖片來源:flickr@Eric G.Gonzalo Alonso

原文刊登於《THEDIPLOMAT》,經作者John W. Traphagan授權編譯,未經許可不得轉載

 

國外編輯部/當拼升學成為事實…美國重新省思技職教育

作者/Nicholas Wyman
編譯/陳嵩仁、余欣融

[tabs]
[tab title=”中文”]

當拼升學成為事實…美國重新省思技職教育

縱觀美國前半段的歷史,高中生被嚴格要求學習讀、寫、算數三個主要科目,以及就業導向的實務技能。

但從1950年代開始,另一種聲音出現了,另一派人主張學生應依循自身能力選擇不同的教育管道。當時的想法是,讓有意準備大學的高中生,修習傳統的學術課程(如拉丁文、創意寫作、科學以及數學)並排除技職訓練; 而不打算上大學的學生除了基本學科外,再加上技職訓練,或進工廠實習。

分流實施後,並未得到老師和家長的青睞,他們覺得分流不是按照學生的能力,而是透過其社經地位和種族來區別,分到後段班的學生通常來自社經地位較低的家庭。這種分流也間接造成教育資源配置不平衡,最有經驗的老師都被分去前段班。造成的結果是,本該是備受尊重的技職教育,變成了少數族群和出身中下階層家庭學生的補救方案。

受到抨擊的分流,並沒有讓技職教育重回高中的重點項目。相反地,學校反而把重心轉移到幫助所有學生升大學,美國高中的課表仍是以大學預備課程為主。

把所有學生都送進大學錯了嗎?取得高等學術文憑不是讓所有學生都可以從中受益嗎?但事實證明,並不見得。不是每個人都擅長數學、生物學、歷史和一大堆學術級的傳統科目;也不是所有人都著迷於希臘神話,或者迷戀維多利亞時期的文學作品。有呆板、制式化的學生,當然也有藝術家性格、風雅的學生。有的能在教室裡全神貫注聽講,有的得透過動手操作以茁壯成長。

而且不是所有高中生都會念大學。根據美國勞動統計局(Bureau of Labor Statistics)的最新數據顯示,只有68%的高中生上大學,這意味著有超過30%的畢業生既無大學學歷,也沒有工作技能。

升上大學的那68%學生也不見得會過的比較好,其中有將近40%的大學生沒念完,意味著大量的時間和金錢平白浪費,還背了一屁股沉重的學貸。而那些好不容易完成學業的學生,有超過三分之一最後從事的工作,根本不需要花大學四年的時間也能勝任。勞動統計局發現,目前37%大學畢業生從事的工作,其實只需要高中學歷。

弔詭的是,明明數據一再地指出,四年制的大學課程能帶給學生的優勢越來越少,政府還是頻頻地砍技職訓練的預算。例如擁有超過60萬學生的洛杉磯聯合學區在2013年決議砍掉近乎所有的技職訓練。技職訓練非常耗錢,因為要買裝備,班級也只能小班經營。比起來,傳統學術課程便宜太多了。然而在七成高中生選擇大學教育,其中近半無法順利畢業,超過一半的畢業生不是找不到工作就是就業能力不足的情況下,還能這樣砍技職的預算嗎?

美國經濟形態早已改變,製造業的擴張和現代化造就出具挑戰性且高薪的高技術性工作(雖然在1980年代初期一度被認為不行了)。技職教育在高中階段的沒落造就今天的製造業人才荒,只好把大量的工作機會轉給就業能力不足的大學畢業生及高中生。 其實,透過學徒制、在職培訓、或是社區院校提供的職業訓練就能取得製造業的就業機會,並不需要一張昂貴的大學文憑。(延伸閱讀:【國外編輯部專欄】美國學徒週 學徒制跟你想的不一樣

幾十年前我們的(公立)教育體系給予年輕學子認識製造業和種種職業的機會,然而在今日的高中裡,學生鮮少接收到選擇技職的後續發展訊息,士大夫思維排擠了其他的管道,整體經濟因而付出了很大的代價。如果我們希望每個孩子都能學有所用、出人頭地,重振高中的技職教育,勢在必行。

註:美國高中有提供技職課程,舉凡家政、打字、木工、金屬、製圖、維修等等,但學校的主力還是放在學術課程。

【作者介紹】Nicholas Wyman

美國Institute for Workplace and Innovation執行長。Institute for Workplace and Innovation關注職場技能的創新發展。

[/tab]
[tab title=”English”]

Why We Desperately Need To Bring Back Vocational Training In Schools

Throughout most of U.S. history, American high school students were routinely taught vocational and job-ready skills along with the three Rs: reading, writing and arithmetic. Indeed readers of a certain age are likely to have fond memories of huddling over wooden workbenches learning a craft such as woodwork or maybe metal work, or any one of the hands-on projects that characterized the once-ubiquitous shop class.

But in the 1950s, a different philosophy emerged: the theory that students should follow separate educational tracks according to ability. The idea was that the college-bound would take traditional academic courses (Latin, creative writing, science, math) and received no vocational training. Those students not headed for college would take basic academic courses, along with vocational training, or “shop.”

Ability tracking did not sit well with educators or parents, who believed students were assigned to tracks not by aptitude, but by socio-economic status and race. The result being that by the end of the 1950s, what was once a perfectly respectable, even mainstream educational path came to be viewed as a remedial track that restricted minority and working-class students.

The backlash against tracking, however, did not bring vocational education back to the academic core. Instead, the focus shifted to preparing all students for college, and college prep is still the center of the U.S. high school curriculum.

So what’s the harm in prepping kids for college? Won’t all students benefit from a high-level, four-year academic degree program? As it turns out, not really. For one thing, people have a huge and diverse range of different skills and learning styles. Not everyone is good at math, biology, history and other traditional subjects that characterize college-level work. Not everyone is fascinated by Greek mythology, or enamored with Victorian literature, or enraptured by classical music. Some students are mechanical; others are artistic. Some focus best in a lecture hall or classroom; still others learn best by doing, and would thrive in the studio, workshop or shop floor.

And not everyone goes to college. The latest figures from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) show that about 68% of high school students attend college. That means over 30% graduate with neither academic nor job skills.

But even the 68% aren’t doing so well. Almost 40% of students who begin four-year college programs don’t complete them, which translates into a whole lot of wasted time, wasted money, and burdensome student loan debt. Of those who do finish college, one-third or more will end up in jobs they could have had without a four-year degree. The BLS found that 37% of currently employed college grads are doing work for which only a high school degree is required.

It is true that earnings studies show college graduates earn more over a lifetime than high school graduates. However, these studies have some weaknesses. For example, over 53% of recent college graduates are unemployed or under-employed. And income for college graduates varies widely by major – philosophy graduates don’t nearly earn what business studies graduates do. Finally, earnings studies compare college graduates to all high school graduates. But the subset of high school students who graduate with vocational training – those who go into well-paying, skilled jobs – the picture for non-college graduates looks much rosier.

Yet despite the growing evidence that four-year college programs serve fewer and fewer of our students, states continue to cut vocational programs. In 2013, for example, the Los Angeles Unified School District, with more than 600,000 students, made plans to cut almost all of its CTE programs by the end of the year. The justification, of course, is budgetary; these programs (which include auto body technology, aviation maintenance, audio production, real estate and photography) are expensive to operate. But in a situation where 70% of high school students do not go to college, nearly half of those who do go fail to graduate, and over half of the graduates are unemployed or underemployed, is vocational education really expendable? Or is it the smartest investment we could make in our children, our businesses, and our country’s economic future?

The U.S. economy has changed. The manufacturing sector is growing and modernizing, creating a wealth of challenging, well-paying, highly skilled jobs for those with the skills to do them. The demise of vocational education at the high school level has bred a skills shortage in manufacturing today, and with it a wealth of career opportunities for both under-employed college grads and high school students looking for direct pathways to interesting, lucrative careers. Many of the jobs in manufacturing are attainable through apprenticeships, on-the-job training, and vocational programs offered at community colleges. They don’t require expensive, four-year degrees for which many students are not suited.

And contrary to what many parents believe, students who get job specific skills in high school and choose vocational careers often go on to get additional education. The modern workplace favors those with solid, transferable skills who are open to continued learning. Most young people today will have many jobs over the course of their lifetime, and a good number will have multiple careers that require new and more sophisticated skills.

Just a few decades ago, our public education system provided ample opportunities for young people to learn about careers in manufacturing and other vocational trades. Yet, today, high-schoolers hear barely a whisper about the many doors that the vocational education path can open. The “college-for-everyone” mentality has pushed awareness of other possible career paths to the margins. The cost to the individuals and the economy as a whole is high. If we want everyone’s kid to succeed, we need to bring vocational education back to the core of high school learning.

 

【Author】Nicholas Wyman

CEO of the Institute for Workplace Skills and Innovation, which is a global enterprise, committed to skills and workforce development in today and tomorrow’s workplace.

[/tab]
[/tabs]

 

其他參考資料:

Tracking (education)

A 21st-century vocational high school

 

原文刊登於《Forbes》,經作者Nicholas Wyman授權編譯,未經許可不得轉載

 

【國外編輯部專欄】美國學徒週 學徒制跟你想的不一樣

 

編譯/陳采華、余欣融

美國總統歐巴馬宣布從今年開始,每年的11月1-7日為全國學徒週(National Apprenticeship Week),此舉旨在促進技職的創新與繁榮。如果政府不鼓勵支持學徒制,歐巴馬表示美國技術人員的素質會落後全球。學徒制的存在提升人民的技能,跟上現代勞動力的需求。

歐巴馬在2014年的年度國會演講(State of the Union address)上,承諾要讓學徒制的人數在2019年前增長一倍(目前全美約44萬人參與學徒制)。今年9月,歐巴馬政府更斥資1.75億美元,為的是擴大學徒制規模(事實上2014-2015年學徒制的人數成長已達過去10年來的新高),他也要求國會在明年度財政預算編入20億美元,設立學徒培訓基金。

這一切並非偶然。經濟衰退使得許多生活在貧窮線以下的低階勞工收入不足以養家糊口;大學畢業生無法跟業界接軌,找不到工作。但同時仍不斷有職缺釋出,因為雇主根本找不到符合條件的員工。

工作變得跟以往不一樣了,不論是工作形態、還是該工作所需的技能。當然,學徒制也早已隨時間演變了。傳統來說,實施學徒制的產業大多集中在建築業,參與學員以男性居多,現代學徒制涵蓋領域廣,如IT、醫療保健與金融業。事實上近幾年學徒制在英國蓬勃發展,學徒制甚至擴大到工商管理、零售、管理以及飯店業。各領域的雇主紛紛意識到,學徒制幾乎百利而無一害。國際研究(International studies)指出,雇主每投資1美元在學徒制上,就能得到1.47美元的回饋。

專業技能很重要,但不一定要讀大學才能培養專業。想像自己剛從高中畢業,或正經歷轉職,只要花兩年時間,接受有薪的在職培訓,外加每週約兩晚的課堂學習,結業後就能在電腦業或是醫療保健業獲得一份待遇不錯的工作。美國勞動部指出,學徒的平均起薪超過5萬美元。想像一下自己在手術房裡協助,或是在公司安裝和維修機器。你也可以拿到證書或是副學士學位,之後更不用煩惱學貸問題。

根據Forbes文章指出,各州開始動起來響應學徒制。南卡羅來納州已經實施卡羅來納學徒計劃好幾年了,集結雇主、社區大學與地方勞動部,一起設計有品質的學徒制,滿足雇主需求,同時給予學徒所需的培訓。過去七年,參與南卡羅來納學徒制的人數從不到100人發展到現在超過10,000人。

而在明尼蘇達州,地方法院最近通過一項倡議,集結雇主、地方院校與地方官員,合力制訂四個領域的職業技能標準。這四個被寄予厚望的領域分別是先進製造業、醫療保健服務業、IT以及農業。地方政府還撥出一部份經費給學徒計劃,做為課堂教學的教育補助金。

其實有些州早就開始了學徒制,現在又有了總統的加持,可謂錦上添花。兩黨(民主黨和共和黨)皆看到了為人民創造更多就業機會的價值,同時學徒制也幫助雇主找到合適的人選,為他們的事業注入新能量。

對於沒有什麼技術能力想習得一技之長的勞工,缺乏產業接軌能力的大學畢業生,或是對坐辦公室感到厭煩,想要動手,讓身心與財富雙收的人,成為學徒將引領你走向一條有意義且待遇好的道路。這會是一個勞工、雇主、美國經濟皆能從中獲利的三贏局面。

 

資料來源:

3 Reasons to Skill Up this National Apprenticeship Week

How Apprenticeship Will Save The American Economy

Department of Labor and the Obama administration  celebrate first-ever National Apprenticeship Week

 

圖片來源:flickr@Department for Transport

 

【國外編輯部專欄】技職生最不想聽到的一句話:這些東西對你來說太難了!

 

作者/Sothy EngChristi Sullivan

編譯/陳采華、 陳嵩仁

[tabs]
[tab title=”中文”]

技職生最不想聽到的一句話:這些東西對你來說太難了!

不知道是第幾次在美容學校聽到這句話了。同學說、老師說、家長也這麼說。

但,我從來沒有後悔過。

應屆畢業生大多會排好畢業後的計畫,且一貫認為本該如此,但其實其實除了四年制的大學外,我們還是有其他的選擇技職學校。 雖然這點常被人忽略,但大眾應該嚴肅看待技職學校,將其作為另一個教育、學習、職業生涯的途徑。

現今許多學生追求大學文憑只因為他們覺得,讀大學這件事是「應該」要做的。最後,他們不僅沒找到工作還背了一屁股債。《幹盡苦差事》的主持人麥克‧羅呼籲學生要正視四年制是否能夠帶領他們完成目標,不要因為職涯老師建議的「要聰明工作,而不是辛苦工作」才將大學當作唯一路徑。

再來的問題是技術工作需求量大,卻總是缺人。如果高中畢業後沒有馬上升學,學生可以仔細想想他們究竟想追求什麼,再去選擇其對應的教育體系。

社會對技職教育的刻板印象不外乎是二流的,讀大學才具優勢。從專業角度來看,教育的目的應該是社會再製,讓每個人能依照自己的能力發揮所長。

巴西當代成人教育學者保羅.弗雷勒(Paulo Freire)在受壓迫者教育學》一書主張,人們應解放自己,不受外在批判性言論的影響。人們應知道,技職學校遭受的不平等與忽視阻礙著努力工作、發展知識與技能的人的發展。

英國《經濟學家》雜誌呼籲美國應該實施職業培訓,但這在美國是最受歧視的。不幸的是,大多數人都這麼認為;諷刺的是,許多薪資優渥的技術工作,找不到持有證照者擔任。

在我看來,這個問題最沮喪的是只有一個明確的解決方案,那就是提高技職教育的品質,而不是一味的把學生都推向大學教育。其實世界上仍有些國家把技職辦的有聲有色,他們對抗社會偏見,建立起讓學生與家長都能自豪的體系,這些國家學生之間的成績差距正好也都比美國低。

《世界教育》一書的作者Vivien Stewart支持技職教育改革,為的是提高教育公平性。他舉出新加坡為此投注大量資金在校園設施和職員上,嚴謹把關課程品質,才能創造成功的技職體系。

技職培訓計劃應與知識經濟培訓相互關聯(而非對立),培養學生包括創造性問題解決能力、合作、批判思考、高階思維等等。如果學生「太聰明」,那就再往前囉!

我看過許多學生進入職業培訓計劃,一開始充滿激情與熱情,但最後嘴裡只剩下苦澀,不知道往那裡走。學生在學校向他們的老師、管理人員、僱主與施政者學習,但這些人都沒善盡職責,最後,學生也跟著有樣學樣。職校少了傳統公立學校的資源與指導,間接粉碎學生的興趣。一些充滿熱誠的老師試著讓職校也保有公立學校的學科,然而其他人總是告訴他們,傳統的學科對這些學生來說「太難了」。直到最後,這些熱血老師也放棄了。這是我們最失敗的地方。

好消息是,全世界漸漸意識到這問題的存在以及社會階級的不平等現象。聯合國呼籲技職教育與培訓要轉變為因應國家經濟及失業議題,且著重縮短技能差距。美國國際開發總署USAID也慢慢擴大高等教育與勞動力發展計劃的目標,期望能打造具相關技能的勞動力,協助國家發展。

此外,受人推崇的國際文憑基金會(IB)正努力為了升學或立即就業的學生們,將導入職能導向課程。

如果我們想從學生身上看到工作倫理和職業道德,就要由我們來樹立典範。所有投身於技職學校的教育者都應負起應有的績效責任。每個學生都是充滿能力跟潛力的,你的責任非常重大。你知道現在的社會大多忽視你的努力和工作,但你必須抵抗並傳遞正確的信念給你的的學生。你希望你的學生學到什麼,都跟你在學校的行為與態度息息相關。

我想對就讀技職學校的學生說:認真看待一切。當所有人對我說「這些東西對你來說太難了」的時候,我正忙著精進自己!其他人說什麼都不關你的事,但你有責任證明你的工作是值得尊敬的。事情不會平白無故改變,適時的向校方和施政者施壓,要以自己現在學習的專業為傲。面對不平等的事情,做好隨時會失望或被白眼的可能性,但不要因此失去你的韌性或熱忱。畢竟不是每個人都有幸擁有受教的權利。

記住,「這些東西對你來說太難了」不是個藉口。你所經歷的、透過非傳統方式獲得的將成為你非常寶貴的經驗。嘗試不同的路,找一個你會愛上的事情,對你的未來負責,你所擁有的一切,教育、生活都是自己創造的。

 

【作者介紹】Sothy Eng

美國理海大學國際文教與比較教育學系教授

[/tab]
[tab title=”English”]

You’re Too Smart For That

This is the phrase I’ve heard countless times from peers, parents and teachers over the years since attending a cosmetology school. I did it anyway and I have never regretted it for a minute.

Recent graduates often consider their post-high school plans to be predetermined and taken as a given, but there are other options besides a four-year degree. Although commonly forgotten and neglected, technical and vocational schools should be invested in, taken seriously, and accepted as a legitimate path to continuing education, intellectual fulfillment, and a successful career.

A common problem today is an overabundance of Bachelor’s degrees with no purpose or end goal. Students have the perception that a four-year college is their only option and end up putting themselves in tremendous amounts of debt with no end goal in mind. Many students pursue a four-year degree simply because that is what they are “supposed” to do rather than as a means to an end, and as a result they end up unemployed and in debt. Mike Rowe of Dirty Jobs urges students to seriously consider how a four-year degree will get them to their goal, rather than assuming college is the only option because of a guidance counselor’s suggestion to “work smart, not hard“.

Another problem is a large supply of technical jobs and not enough people to fill them. If students weren’t hoarded into a four year college immediately after high school, they could make a decision about what they actually want to accomplish in their lives and choose their education accordingly.

There is a general social perception that technical schools are looked down upon and considered “second class.” From a functionalist perspective, the purpose of schooling is considered as a social reproduction of class that sorts people into a certain role based on their ability. Attending college might be seen as a value associated with the dominant class whereas technical training school with working class. Tracking is therefore justified to suit the specific educational needs and various abilities of individuals. According to Paulo Freire in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, the people should liberate themselves to become critically aware of the systematic inequalities reinforced by the dominant class. People need to be aware that the neglect of technical and vocational school perpetuates social inequalities and fails to provide an avenue where those who work hard and develop their knowledge and skills will succeed.

The Economist calls vocational training “America’s most sneered-at high-school programme,” and unfortunately, most people would probably agree. Ironically, there is a huge supply of technical jobs that pay a decent salary, and not enough people with the appropriate certifications to fill them.

While 8.5 percent of recent bachelor degree graduates are unemployed, trade school employment is in demand, almost impossible to outsource, and will never be usurped by the internet.

In my opinion, the most frustrating thing about this issue is that there is a clear solution: invest in improving the quality and access of technical and vocational education and refrain from shoving anyone and everyone into a four-year degree program regardless of career goals. With inadequate facilities, undertrained an unappreciated staff, and outdated curriculum and equipment, it is no mystery why these institutions are often seen by students and their parents as unattractive.

There are other countries doing this with great success; they are able to combat societal prejudice and create a prestigious technical and vocational program that students and their parents can be proud of. These also happen to be the countries with lower achievement gaps than the United States. In A World Class Education, Vivien Stewart supports the reform of technical and vocational education schools to improve the overall equity of education, and cites Singapore as a country that has built a very successful system of technical and vocational schools by investing in the facilities and staff and upholding a rigorous curriculum.

Technical and vocational training programs should be intertwined with (not in opposition to) the knowledge economy training, including skills such as creative problem solving, cooperation, and critical and higher order thinking. If the students are “too smart” for the curriculum, then let’s advance it.

I have seen students enter a career training program full of passion and enthusiasm and leave beaten down with a bitter taste in their mouth and no idea where to go from there. The only thing these students learned in school is that their teachers, administrators, owners, and policy makers don’t take their roles seriously, and now they no longer do either. The current state of many technical and vocational schools serves to crush the enthusiasm of students who might have discovered something they love, but did not receive the resources or direction that one would expect from a traditional public school. The passion teachers try to inspire in traditional academics exists in technical schools, but they are told they are “too smart for it” until they come to believe it. As educators, administrators, and policy makers, the failure is ours.

The good news is that the world recognizes this problematic gap and the social class inequalities that come along with it. The United Nations is calling for the transformation of TVET systems in response to many countries economic and unemployment issues, and is focusing on the skill gaps. USAID has included, under their goal of expanding access to higher education and workforce development programs, an improved ability of tertiary and workforce development programs to produce a workforce with relevant skills to support country development goals. Additionally, the respected International Baccalaureate (IB) program is incorporating a Career-related Program (CP) into curriculum, leading to either further education or immediate employment.

So there is hope for the future of technical and vocational education, but it will take work. As educators, administrators, owners, employers, and parents, let’s model the determination, work ethic, and professional behavior we would like to see in our students. To all educators at technical and vocational schools: take responsibility for the culture of your school. View and treat your students as competent and full of potential, because they are. For some of your students, you may be all they have; do not take that responsibility lightly. You are already aware that most of society will overlook your effort and disregard your work as irrelevant, but continue to resist internalizing that. By adopting that belief, you pass it along to your students. Take a personal ownership in the collective attitude of your school and model the behaviors and attitudes you want your students to learn.

And most importantly, to those enrolled in technical and vocational education: take your work seriously. While everyone was busy telling me that I’m too smart for this, I was busy getting ahead. Other people’s opinion is none of your business, but it is your responsibility to demonstrate through excellence that your work is something to be valued. Things will not change on their own, so pressure your administrators and policy makers and be willing to collaborate. Take pride in what you do. Give a piece of yourself to every project you create and make yourself proud. As with all inequalities, prepare to be disappointed sometimes and looked down upon, but never lose resilience or enthusiasm. After all, your education itself, as well as your own participation in it, is a fantastic gift that not everyone is fortunate enough to have.

Remember that “It’s not fair” is no more of an excuse than “You’re too smart for that” is an argument, and the experience you gain through nontraditional paths will contribute an invaluable perspective later on. So take the road less traveled, find something you can fall in love with, take responsibility for your future, and give it everything you have. Your education, as with life, is what you make it.

 

【Author】Sothy Eng

Professor of Practice of Comparative and International Education at Lehigh University

[/tab]
[/tabs]

 

圖片來源:flickr@Steven Depolo

原文刊登於《HuffingtonPost.com》,經作者Sothy Eng授權編譯,未經許可不得轉載