標籤: 中英文章

【國外編輯部專欄】八成學子選技職 失業率最低的歐盟國家─奧地利

 

作者/  Thomas J. Duesterberg

編譯/  鐘敏綺

[tabs]
[tab title=”中文”]

八成學子選技職 失業率最低的歐盟國家─奧地利

我最近以來賓身分參與了馬歇爾中心（George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies）為期半年的參訪行程，仔細觀察奧地利這個小卻繁榮的國家所實行的技職教育與訓練計畫（Vocational Education and Training Program, VET），在美國，技職教育這個詞長久以來被負面解讀，從美國人汲汲營營於讓所有學生順利完成大學四年教育可見一斑。

美國現面臨高等教育支出成本日益增高，相關問題如畢業就職、職涯穩定性及整體經濟影響一一浮出檯面，奧地利在初等教育階段採取跟美國相當不一樣的作法，雖然在德國、瑞士及丹麥也有類似的技職教育與訓練計畫（VET），但奧地利的作法相當成功，值得我們進行深入探討。

接受完九年初等義務教育後，奧地利學生根據在學表現、考試及個人生涯規劃選擇大學教育或是職業教育。學生15歲時就得做出選擇，比美國早了許多。

在每個年齡層中，大約有80%的人選擇進入技職體制，這個比例高於其他亦重視技職教育的國家，如德國（60-70%）及瑞士（66%）。選擇技職教育與訓練計畫 （VET）的學生中，一半的學生進入傳統的學徒制，每周大約三至四天的時間接受公司的訓練課程，可選擇的職業相當多元，如金屬加工、電機工程、機械維護、焊接、模具製作及其他工藝技術，剩下的時間（每週大約一至兩天）在學校學習數學、語言及一般技能；而另一半的學生則進入全職且以校為本的方案，其中能選擇各式各樣在美國被視為白領階級的工作，例如零售業、銀行業、會計業、護理業及飯店業。

奧地利的經濟相當依賴工業輸出，約有30%的經濟與工業相關，因此在全球高度競爭的環境中，學徒制補足了日益漸增的高度專業化職缺。與其他中歐國家相似，奧地利的技職教育特色在於私營公司的參與，奧地利所有公司都隸屬於當地的經濟體系中，協助學徒制課程設計。

參與計劃的公司聽完勞工代表的建議後，決定公司接下來的技術需求，並接受當地及地區的教育機構幫助，共同策劃訓練方案。面試成功的15或16歲學徒將被雇用、給予談好的薪水，並在工廠及學校接受兩者共同開發的課程。

3至4年的學徒制結束後，若學生通過檢定考試，能獲得國家認證的技能證書。若他們表現出色，甚至通過其他額外的考試，他們可以繼續進修成為更專精的技工或進入大學教育體系。拜制度所賜，公司受惠良多，如擁有穩定且受過專業訓練的人才來源 （大部分的學徒最會留在受訓公司內），甚至在學生完成學徒制前就得到其產出。另一部分在學校接受完整技職訓練的學生需花3至5年完成課程，並依規定暑假到公司實習。

大約86%選擇技職體制的學生能完成，這個比例遠高於歐盟的平均值，部分原因是學生在相當小的年紀就分流，相較於歐盟23%和美國的15%的平均值，奧地利青年失業率約只有8%，而沒有推行此種技職教育的國家，如法國、義大利及西班牙的青年失業率甚至更高。大致來說，奧地利的公司找的到符合公司需求的勞動力，雖然公司高層仍表示基於奧地利人口成長停滯，他們希望能有更完善健全的人才來源。奧地利的產值約15%，此數值高於歐盟平均值，專家將部份原因歸於技職教育體系的成功。

另外，讓人覺得困惑的是，其他20%選擇進入大學體制的學生，有三分之二未完成學業，造成此種情況的原因我並不清楚，因為大部分高等教育的花費都由奧地利政府支付，且接受大學教育的學生比起技職學生有更多的特權及升遷機會。

技職教育，源自於德國二戰後出現的社會市場經濟產物，在奧地利被廣為接受。但若此制度在個人主義較強烈且服務至上的美國運行的話，會得到相當不同的結果，因為美國重視大學學歷高於一切，不希望小孩小小就選擇職業，且重視白領階級職業更勝藍領。

我們能從奧地利的技職教育體制中學到什麼？首先，我們要讓政府正視眾多產業（特別是製造業）技術短缺的問題；第二，美國公司需與當地學校更緊密地配合，設計出更適合的課程訓練技職人才，當年長的勞動者相繼退休時，會有更急迫的需求；第三，如果承認技職人才在經濟發展過程中功不可沒，有可能改變技職長久以來受社會污名化的現象。

最後，學生若能明白學徒制的運作和優點，也許就不會再這麼盲目地追求大學學歷了。

 

【作者介紹： Thomas J. Duesterberg 】

美國華盛頓特區教育政策機構The Aspen Institute工業部執行董事

[/tab]
[tab title=”English”]

Lessons for the US Workforce: Austria’s Vocational Education System

I recently had the opportunity as a guest of the semi-annual George C. Marshall Visit to Austria program to take a close look at the Vocational Education and Training Program (VET) in that small but prosperous country. The term “vocational education” has long had a negative connotation in the United States, as we rush headlong to meet a goal of helping all of our students to achieve a four-year college education.

Apart from the problem of the rapidly rising cost of higher education in the US is the question of its impact on employment, stability of careers, and contributions to the health of the overall economy. Austria offers a much different approach to post-primary education in the US — though similar to VET systems in Germany, Switzerland, and Denmark — and one whose success merits a close look for this country.

After nine years of mandatory primary school training, Austrian youth make a choice of preparing for a university education or going into a VET track. This decision is made much earlier than in the United States, as the triage is made normally at the age of 15 in Austria. It’s based on school performance, testing, and individual choice.

Roughly 80 percent of each age cohort goes into the VET program, a proportion higher than other VET-friendly countries such as Germany (about 60-70 percent go into VET tracks) and Switzerland (almost two-thirds). Half of those in the VET track are in traditional apprenticeship programs, which feature three to four days per week in a company training regimen in one of over 200 specialized occupations such as metal working, mechatronics, machine repair and control, welding, tool and die making, and other crafts. The other one to two days are spent in formal schooling to learn math, languages, and other general skills. The rest of the Austrian VET students go into full-time, school-based programs in a variety of areas that would be considered white-collar jobs in the United States: retail trade, banking, accounting, nursing, and hospitality, among others.

Austria is a heavily industrialized economy, with some 30 percent of output related to this sector, so the major roles apprenticeships play is appropriate for filling the increasingly specialized jobs required to compete in a highly competitive global economy. Similar to other central European countries, a key feature of the Austrian system is the buy-in of private firms to the VET system. All firms in Austria are required to belong to local economic chambers and contribute to the VET system, both financially and in terms of developing curricula for apprenticeship training.

With the cooperation and input of labor representatives, participating companies decide on the skills they need for the future success of their companies and set up the training programs with the help of local and regional educational institutions. Apprenticeships are awarded by each company, and the successful applicants are hired (at the age of 15 or 16), paid negotiated salaries, and trained in factories and schools according to the curriculum that is jointly developed.

At the end of the three-to-four-year apprenticeship, if the students pass the qualifying exam they are awarded a nationally recognized skill certificate. If they do well and pass additional exams, they can go on to become master craftsmen or to university education. Companies benefit by having a pipeline of trained workers (a high percentage of apprentices stay with the sponsoring company) and get increasing output from the students even before they complete the programs. Students in the full-time school VET tracks generally require three to five years of training, with mandatory summer company internships.

Almost 86 percent of those entering the VET track complete the program, a rate much higher than the European Union average. In part because so many young people enter VET at an early age, the youth unemployment rate in Austria is only about 8 percent, compared to an EU average of 23 percent and a US rate of 15 percent. Non-VET countries like France, Italy, and Spain have even higher youth unemployment rates. Austrian firms are generally able to meet their needs for skilled labor — although company executives often report they would like to see a more robust pipeline due to demographic stagnation in Austria. Productivity in the country is about 15 percent higher than the EU average, which authorities attribute at least in part to the success of the VET system.

As an aside, it is perplexing to note that of the 20 percent of those who enter the university system, more than two-thirds do not finish. It is unclear why this is the case, as financing of higher education in Austria is largely paid by the government, and a university education, like in the United States, generally confers more privilege and advancement opportunities than the VET tracks.

The VET system is widely accepted in Austria and indeed is a product of the Germanic “social market economy,” which emerged in the last century after World War II. It is highly unlikely that it would be imported to the US — which has a more individually-oriented and services-dominated economy — because it places a higher value in college degrees for all students, frowns on making career choices at a young age, and generally values white collar over what are traditionally considered blue collar occupations.

There are, however, some lessons from the VET system that ought to receive a better hearing in the US. First, we do need to address the question of skills shortages in many industries, especially if the resurgence many predict for US manufacturing is to be realized. Secondly, US companies need to become more engaged with local school systems to craft the right training programs to fill the jobs pipeline, especially with an already aging workforce in the industrial sector now beginning to retire. Thirdly, the economic results of the VET system for both workers and companies, if better understood, might help overcome the social and cultural stigma for this type of training and career path, which has grown over the years.

Finally, the aspirational goal of a university degree for every student might be tempered by understanding the high level of skills obtained in apprenticeship programs, the job satisfaction and career paths resulting from successful nurturing of skills, and the economic outcomes possible with a well-run VET system.

 

【Author： Thomas J. Duesterberg 】

Executive Director of the Manufacturing and Society program at the Aspen Institute

[/tab]
[/tabs]

 

圖片來源：flickr@Michael Dawes

原文刊登於《Huffington Post》，經作者Thomas J. Duesterberg授權編譯，未經許可不得轉載

 

【國外編輯部專欄】學徒制是英國技術斷層的救星?首相卡麥隆：未來五年增三百萬學徒機會

 

作者/ Alan Smithers

編譯/ 吳姵瑱、余欣融

[tabs]
[tab title=”中文”]

學徒制是英國技術斷層的救星?首相卡麥隆：未來五年增三百萬學徒機會

英國現任首相大衛・卡麥隆（David Cameron）競選期間曾承諾，接下來的五年要再創造超過三百萬個學徒機會，平均一年增加約六十萬個名額。上一學年（2013-2014）全國各年齡層參與學徒制總人數為四十四萬，此舉證明英國將學徒制視為拯救技術斷層的良藥。

目前16-18歲的青少年只有約5％的人投入學徒制，選擇高等教育的則近50％。學徒制被視為是給功課不好、只能從事勞動工作的人做。然而許多雇主表示，申請學徒制的人資質良莠不齊，他們也不願聘用。

前英國首相約翰・梅傑（John Major）於執政期間（1990-1997）推行新學徒制改善青年失業率。新制雖保有實習之名，卻無實習之實。以職業資格證書（National Vocational Qualifications, 簡稱NVQs）（註1）為例，能力取代訓練成為認證的重點。沒有特定的預備課程，也沒有強制修業年限。不論技能如何習得，一旦能力經過審核確認，學員便能取得證書。比起應屆畢業生，這樣的制度對在職人士較有吸引力。

為了補足學徒制無實習之實，第一屆卡麥隆內閣（2010-2015年5月）規定坊間培訓機構得提供內容充實、為期至少12個月，加入工作時間外的訓練，才能得到經費補助和認可。這樣的做法短時間內無法提升參與人數，但其嚴謹和困難度才有可能提高技能資格證書的價值。第二屆卡麥隆內閣（2015年5月-現在）以產業做區隔，邀請雇主一同設立新的認證標準，涵蓋了74個行業和列出多達1500項的專業技能項目。然而政府也坦言某些技能項目只是針對淘汰率高的工作，它們過於特定，不是可轉移技能。

按照現行制度，職業資格證書是由各別獨立的培訓機構審核並核發，而傳統學位型課程則是提供整體資格認證。雖然這樣的做法（培訓機構各自審核及核發證書）提供較大的彈性，但缺點是缺乏整體性。


大衛・卡麥隆參訪位於白金漢郡米爾頓凱恩斯鎮（Milton Keynes）的賓士學院

 

現行技職體制也存在著一些問題，例如該如何將數學和英文併入技職課程。在新學徒制下，學生必須在普通中等教育課程（General Certificate of Secondary Education,以下簡稱GCSE）或其他同等學歷的英文和數學課程中，取得至少C的成績，無法達成的學生只能不斷地重修這些科目，而新版的GCSEs肯定會讓證書取得難上加難。由於不如GCSEs具有公信力，功能性學科證書（Functional Skills qualification）（註2）無法成為替代方案。

GCSEs 和功能性學科證書的共同缺點是過於一般化，缺乏專業性。拿德國教育體制來說，數學和語言課程是由專精各行業的老師根據實際需求授課，所以受訓的學生或許在學術科目表現不理想，但得熟稔自己專攻領域會用到的數學和語言能力才能取得證書。我認為採用德國的做法將帶領英國學徒制前進一大步：轉型成客製化的整合訓練課程以吸引更多年輕人投入職業訓練。今天若是以學位的方式授予證書和頭銜肯定會讓學徒制更加熱門搶手。

考試規範處（Office of Qualifications  and Examinations Regulation,簡稱Ofqual） 對於目前坊間各式各樣五花八門的職業資格證書尚未有實際規範的方法。如果由政府統一管理規範資格證書或許能幫助學徒制重拾其應有的社會價值和地位。證書的核發數量不應該太多，才能以GCSEs同等規格審核。職業資格證書才能「確實」地帶給求職者加分效果並同時有效率地幫助雇主媒合所需人才，因為他們可以省下審核一大堆資格證書的時間。

除了具公信力的職業資格證書，學校也應不遺餘力的推廣技職訓練。對現在的學生而言，學徒制成了GCSE考不好的唯一出路，唯一在10和11年級（Key Stage 4）加入技職體驗的課程（Young Apprentice Programme）也因為經費的關係於2010年停辦。現行的學徒制並不適合14-16歲的學生，但對於滿16歲的學生則提供了另一個機會和選擇。然而，成效不彰的職涯諮商讓原本就處於劣勢的技職路線更加不明確。

目前政府仰賴獎金方案擴張投入學徒制的人數和學徒機會。但若是要提供應屆畢業生最實際的技職課程，達成當初承諾大眾的三百萬個學徒機會，政府須確定訓練內容符合產業需求、吸引優質學員，打造明確且具公信力的的管道，才能幫助學生「真正」校園職場無縫接軌。

 

註1：職業資格證書 （National Vocational Qualifications, 簡稱NVQs）：學徒達成某領域如水電工、理髮師所需的專業工作技能標準可獲得資格證書

註2：功能性學科證書（Functional Skills qualification）：學生達成基本英數要求可獲得學科證書

 

【作者介紹：Alan Smithers】

英國白金漢大學產學合作發展中心所長

[/tab]
[tab title=”English”]

National apprenticeship qualifications could attract a new generation of trainees

Apprenticeships are the big hope for rescuing Britain’s skills base. During the election campaign, David Cameron promised three million extra places. This pledge is a massive increase on the total of 440,000 people, from all age groups, starting an apprenticeship in 2013-14.

Sixteen to 18-year-olds account for only about a quarter of those embarking on apprenticeships. Take-up among this age group is flat-lining at about five per cent, compared with the nearly 50 per cent going on to higher education. They tend to perceive apprenticeships as being about manual jobs for those who have not done well at school. But employers complain that too many apprenticeship applicants are just not good enough, and the evidence is that they are not recruiting from the lowest attainment quartile.

The Government is seriously in need of a game changer. Something for it to consider is national apprenticeship qualifications. When John Major’s government brought in “modern apprenticeships”, partly to ease youth unemployment, it applied a name evoking a cherished reputation for high-quality training to something quite different. In their new form, apprenticeships became the containers for collections of various vocational qualifications. Among them were the National Vocational Qualifications (NVQs), which deliberately moved the focus from training to competence. They did not set out programmes of preparation or periods of training time, but instead ticked off what trainees could do, irrespective of how they had learned to do it. As such, it is not surprising that apprenticeships as they have been reinvented should have more appeal to people already in work than school-leavers.

The Coalition tried to strengthen apprenticeships by requiring them to involve “substantial and sustained training lasting a minimum of 12 months and including off-the-job training”, in order to receive funding and recognition. This condition seems to have slowed growth in the short-term, but it was hoped that the greater stringency would enhance the status.

The Government invited employers to work together in sector-based groups (as “trailblazers”) to set new standards. A total of 74 groups have been formed and the specifications being set are proliferating at a rapid rate, with 1,500 or more in prospect. But ministerial concern has been expressed that they may be too specific, not really transferable, and, in some cases, directed at jobs with a short shelf life.

But is the new Government doing enough? Under the present plans, apprenticeships will continue to be collections of standalone qualifications. Unlike in degree programmes, where there is an overall qualification, in apprenticeships it is the individual parts that lead to awards. This has the considerable merit of flexibility, but it also means that they are fragmented.

The model poses a number of problems. Take, for example, how to incorporate maths and English. Under the new standards, the requirement is for at least a grade C in both the GCSE or equivalent. The Government favours achieving this through the resitting of GCSEs themselves. This leaves trainees who have struggled with these subjects facing the prospect of having to take them again and again to complete their apprenticeships. The new, beefed-up GCSEs will put these qualifications even further out of reach. There has been a Functional Skills qualification as an alternative, but the Government is discouraging its use since it believes it lacks the currency of GCSEs.

The trouble with both the GCSEs and the Functional Skills qualification is that they are general in intention. In the admired German system, maths and languages are taught in relation to the occupational field. Apprentice plumbers, for example, are taught maths that will be meaningful for them – by teachers specialising in teaching maths to plumbers. The trainees usually become very proficient in the branches they have to master in order to qualify, even though they may have a poor record in the academic subject.

A bold step for this country would be to follow suit. This approach, however, depends on the apprenticeship being a tailored, integrated training programme. National qualifications would drive apprenticeships in this direction, since programmes would have to be laid down to meet the specifications of the awards.

A distinctive qualification for apprenticeships would almost certainly make them more attractive. At present, many trainees are taking some form of vocational training outside of apprenticeships. Many of these would be likely to be drawn in by a distinctive award. Conceivably, it could be made even more appealing by, in the manner of degrees, bringing an entitlement to put letters after the name.

David Cameron visits Mercedes-Benz’s apprentice academy in Milton Keynes (Getty)

 

National apprenticeship qualifications would also be something that successful candidates could show to potential employers. Life would be easier for employers, too, because in recruiting, they would not have to wade through assemblages of vocational and other qualifications. Distinctive awards would also give apprenticeships a clear identity and provide a focus for careers advisers. There is already an apprenticeship certification system (administered by the Federation of Industry Sector Skills & Standards). But this is little known and is only an adjunct to the separate qualifications.

Integrated apprenticeships would translate the standards set by the employer “trailblazers” into actual training programmes. This would be a check on the proliferation of standards and ensure that they were renewed regularly. The number of apprenticeship qualifications would be relatively small, so that it would be feasible for the Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation (Ofqual) to put them under the same scrutiny as GCSEs and A-levels.

The vast array of vocational qualifications has so far left Ofqual puzzling over how to accredit them. The issue of what the qualification in maths and English should be would be resolved because they could be seamlessly fitted into the training programme and qualification.

National apprenticeship qualifications would also enable the Government to claim the brand. It does not own the apprenticeship brand and as a qualification it is easily confused, in the eyes of the public, with the lesser offerings that are out there. Consequently, its efforts to raise the status of apprenticeships have been severely hampered. But the Government would have ownership of the national apprenticeship qualifications so that the approved programmes would bear its imprimatur.

However, national apprenticeship qualifications would not be enough to catalyse the major expansion that the Government envisages. Another necessary reform would be to provide clear routes into apprenticeships from school. At present, the major impetus seems to come from not doing very well in GCSE exams. There was once a Young Apprenticeship Programme incorporating work experience at Key Stage 4, but it was ended in 2010 – mainly on the grounds of cost.

The present Traineeship scheme is not for 14 to 16-year-olds, but is a second chance, post-16, for those who did not match up to the requirements the first time. The lack of clear routes into apprenticeships is exacerbated by feeble careers advice.

The Government is counting on financial incentives to boost the number of apprenticeships offered and taken up. But to have any hope of getting anywhere near three million, especially of providing the necessary training for school-leavers, it will have to ensure that they genuinely meet employer needs and attract many more able applicants, and that there are recognisable ladders from school to work. Could national apprenticeship qualifications be the key?

 

【Author：Alan Smithers】

Professor Alan Smithers is the director of the Centre for Education and Employment Research at the University of Buckingham

[/tab]
[/tabs]

 

圖片來源：《The Independent》

原文刊登於《The Independent》，經作者Alan Smithers授權編譯，未經許可不得轉載

 

國外編輯部／東亞國家PISA表現優異的真相：壓榨學生的課外生活

 

作者/ Ian Morgan

編譯/ 李苾琳

[tabs]
[tab title=”中文”]

東亞國家PISA表現優異的真相：壓榨學生的課外生活

自從上海在國際學生能力評量計畫(以下簡稱PISA)奪冠後，越來越多呼籲澳洲和其他西方國家效法東亞的聲音出現。

凱文‧唐納利(Kevin Donnely)是澳洲天主教大學的教授，他在英國新聞網站The Conversation主張澳洲學校應再次採用老師主導課堂的填鴨式教法，這番言論隨即被轉載到美國華盛頓郵報和中國南方早報。

凱文把東亞國家的成功歸因為他們獨特的教育系統，然而，這些國家的教育系統本身是很多樣化的，不單單只使用填鴨式或是其他特殊的教學方法。

倫敦大學學院教育研究院(UCL Institute of Education)比較了在原國籍生長的東亞學童和在澳洲長大的東亞學童的學業成就，提出另個可信度較高的解釋：東亞學生卓越的學業表現可能跟他們承諾認真努力有關。

英國倫敦大學的研究也發現父母為東亞裔的學生在數學方面的表現優於父母為澳裔的學生。 在澳洲就學的東亞裔學童在PISA得到跟上海學童差不多的分數，遠高於香港、日本、南韓、新加坡和台灣學生的成績。顯然地，不是因為東亞國家有什麼厲害的教學方法，真正影響的因素是長達數小時的課後學習。

不能輸在起跑點，所以學齡前就要開始寫功課，上學後功課只會越來越多。從PISA2012的數據我們可看出東亞學生參加課後輔導的比例遠遠高於澳洲學生，他們一般也花更多的時間埋首書堆。這種緊繃的學習模式在澳洲讀書的東亞學生身上不曾間斷。由此可知，文化背景影響東亞學生的學業表現遠大於長期受西方教育。

東亞學生表現優異是因為深信成功在於用功，而非有好的老師或特別的教學方法。

 

如果東亞學生的優秀表現是文化展現的教育成果，我們捫心自問是否該仿效東亞父母和學校的教育方法。大幅度的進行文化改革在合理的時間框架下是可行的，但我有兩個質疑這是否為明智之舉的理由。

首先，我們先以東亞為借鏡，大多數的東亞國家都不滿意他們的教育成果。他們認為自己無法培育出能靈活思考的新創家，老是認為西方的教育系統比較好。

其次，我們也該看看東亞國家教育體系帶給孩子的壓力，伴隨而來的心理健康問題和近視疾病。PISA表現優異的東亞國家幾乎都存在上述問題。

東亞國家約有80%的學生在中學時罹患近視，之中約有20%屬重度近視，將來喪失視力的風險偏高，這些視力問題跟長時間的室內苦讀有關。東亞教育的成功背後是耗費龐大的人力成本。

總之，我們能從東亞教育身上學的東西不多。儘管評論家與政策制定者循著這路線，對東亞國家來說，他們意欲仿效的西方國家如芬蘭、加拿大、甚至澳洲和紐西蘭都比較好。這些西方國家在追求教育成果時，不忘留意學生的身心發展，而且也沒有近視的流行。

 

[作者介紹：Ian Morgan]

澳洲國立大學和中國中山大學訪問學者。

[/tab]
[tab title=”English”]

Claims of East Asia’s ‘chalk and talk’ teaching success are wrong, and short-sighted too

Since Shanghai, China, emerged at the top of international league tables of educational performance such as the OECD’s Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), there have been repeated calls for Australia and other western countries to learn from East Asian countries.

One of the more recent comes from Kevin Donnelly, recently published in The Conversation and picked up by The Washington Post and the South China Morning Post. This article advocated that we should learn from the “chalk and talk” teaching methods reported to be used in Shanghai, where a teacher directs instruction from the front of the class, and revive these in Australian schools.

The problem with such calls is the assumption that the success of East Asian countries is due to specific features of their education systems. Even at first glance, this assumption would seem to be dubious. The school systems in these countries are quite diverse and are certainly not universally characterised by the use of chalk and talk, or any other specific teaching method.

It was always possible that the success of East Asian students was primarily due to their commitment to educational success through hard work. Recent work has demonstrated that this alternative explanation is probably correct. This work compares the performance of children of East Asian ethnicity growing up in their country of origin with similar children growing up in Australia.

It is obvious that in migrating to Australia, these children did not bring their schools, their teachers and their teaching methods with them. So, if they continue to be high performers, what they left behind cannot provide the explanation.

Educational success in East Asian countries is based on a culture of hard work, not chalk. Shutterstock

 

The University of London study found that Australian students with East Asian parents outperform those with Australian-born parents in mathematics by the equivalent of nearly three years of schooling. The results of students of East Asian ancestry in Australia were statistically similar to the average score of Shanghai students (613) and significantly higher than scores in Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan. Thus students of East Asian ancestry in Australia perform highly without access to the teachers and schools in their country of origin.

There is a lot of evidence pointing to the real factors involved, in particular long hours of out-of-school study. Homework starts early, often as early as pre-school, and increases as students proceed through school. Data from PISA 2012 show that a higher percentage of students from East Asia participate in out-of-school coaching classes than in Australia. They generally spend much longer on homework and study at home as well. These intense study patterns are continued by students of East Asian ancestry growing up in Australia.

A smaller study published in the Journal of Education Policy found similar results. It concluded that:

cultural background appears to be more consequential for the educational attainment of Chinese immigrant students than exposure to the educational systems of Australia or New Zealand.

 

This success comes with costs Australia doesn’t want

If the greater success of students of East Asian ancestry, both in East Asia and Australia, is a matter of cultural commitment to education, we need to ask if we should emulate the educational pressures imposed by East Asian parents and schools. There are two reasons for doubting that this is a sensible way to go, even if such a substantial cultural shift was feasible in a reasonable time-frame.

Firstly, while we may look to East Asia for lessons, most countries in East Asia are dissatisfied with their educational outcomes. They believe that they are not producing flexible and creative thinkers, and often look to western education systems for a lead.

Secondly, we also need to look at the impact of the educational pressures imposed in East Asia on the children. There are many reports of mental health and attitudinal issues associated with these pressures. One of the best documented is the emergence of an epidemic of myopia, or short-sightedness, in precisely those countries in East Asia that score highly on both educational outcomes and out-of-school coaching and homework in PISA data.

In East Asia, around 80% of students completing secondary school are short-sighted. Around 20% have such severe myopia that they are at a markedly increased risk of irreversible vision loss later in life. Studies have linked these vision problems with extended periods of time spent indoors studying. The human cost of East Asian educational success is very high.

All in all, there is not a lot for us to learn from East Asia on educational success, despite the commentators and policy-makers who follow this line. Instead, it may make more sense for East Asian countries to look at western countries such as Finland, Canada and even Australia and New Zealand. They manage to combine reasonably high educational outcomes with more rounded and balanced development of students, and without an epidemic of myopia.

 

【Author：Ian Morgan】
Visiting Fellow, Research School of Biology and Distinguished Visiting Fellow, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, CHina at Australian National University

[/tab]
[/tabs]

 

圖片來源：《The Conversation》

原文經合作媒體：《The Conversation》授權編譯，未經許可不得轉載

 

【國外編輯部專欄】維修咖啡館 能修補的東西超出你預期

 

作者/ Jade Herriman

編譯/ 陳采華

[tabs]
[tab title=”中文”]

維修咖啡館 能修補的東西超出你預期

試想，若你的智慧型手機螢幕碎裂，腳踏車輪胎彎曲變形，或是最愛的那雙靴子破了洞，你會怎麼做？當然你可能直接買新的，或者你也可以跟上潮流，帶著壞掉的物品到「維修咖啡館」去重修舊好。

澳洲環保組織Bower Reuse and Repair Centre剛在雪梨西區開了澳洲第一間維修咖啡館，這家由群眾募資所開設的咖啡館，於每週不同時段為腳踏車、家具以及電子產品提供維修服務。

2009年，全世界第一家維修咖啡館於荷蘭阿姆斯特丹成立，而根據維修咖啡館基金會表示，已經有超過400家的維修咖啡館開設於全球各地。

什麼是維修咖啡館？

維修咖啡館提供給具有維修技能的志願者，以及有需要修理物品的當地居民免費面對面交流的機會。大多時候會在當地工作室、社區中心、當地市集，以及公園擺設攤位等，「可以隨時造訪」的空間來提供週修、月修或是季修的服務。此外，民眾不單單只是將家裡壞掉的物品帶來，在這裡他們會觀摩甚至學習如何修理直到工作完成。有些東西會在活動當下修好，而對於較具挑戰性的品項，人們大多轉向當地維修專門店。

維修志工不一定是專業技工，但是他們熱愛修東西。如同許多人只是喜愛腳踏車，而在過程中進一步學會保養與維修；喜愛縫紉的人會縫縫補補、修改老舊的衣服；還有一些人對手錶的運作充滿興趣。

澳洲第一間維修咖啡館座落於雪梨西區。

 

除了因為興趣外，維修是必須深入了解後而學會的技能，也是帶來莫大成就感的創新過程。這也是為什麼許多曾光顧的顧客最後都成為了志工。

在維修咖啡館成功修復的品項清單很多：腳踏車、衣物、相機、行動電話、電腦、除草機、行李箱、燈具、烤麵包機、光碟播放機、微波爐 — 基本上，差不多所有你能帶去的東西都能修理。

為甚麼要修理？直接買新的不就好了？

現在人們對物質的觀念有著極大的變化，從老一輩的「能修就修」一直到現今的「壞了就丟」。簡易的修理 ─ 像是修補鞋子、縫補洋裝破洞、把斷了的椅子黏起來…都越來越少見。為了生活便利，用完就丟的觀念越來越深，從刮鬍刀、筆等小型用品一直延伸到服飾、傢俱以及電子產品。漸漸的，廉價大量生產使人們產生東西不夠好就該丟掉的觀念，維修被認為是件退流行又沒有必要的事。

根據澳洲國家統計局的數據來看，去年澳洲全國丟棄了超過50萬噸的皮革與布料製品，遠遠超過了回收利用的十倍量。但英國研究指出，回收舊衣減少了人類對環境所造成的衝擊，同時也促進社會平等。

修理文化

修理東西其實很有趣。

 

修理代表著對時下用完即丟文化概念的對抗。維修咖啡館提供人們談論，促進交流的機會，並學習運用當地資源。也許對認為修理是苦差事的人們來說會很驚訝，但維修咖啡館不但有趣且充滿創意。

在加州帕羅奧圖一次的活動後，主辦者在他的部落格寫道：「來維修咖啡館的人都很開心。這似乎代表我們真的引起共鳴，不僅激起他們對修理的熱情，也提升了人們對社區參與的意願。同時透過人與人之間的關係，如與其他當地團體及社區維修中心等的合作，激發出許多不同的想法，並相互建議下一次如何做會更好。最重要的是，「每個參與者都很開心。」同時，來自英國的主辦者強調：修理不但有創意且富含政治性，還是能力與獨立的象徵，亦是凝聚社區意識及減少資源浪費的方式之一。

創客運動(Maker Movement)、駭客空間(Hackerspace)和其他業餘玩家、學生與DIY狂熱者的崛起，是這波21世紀DIY風潮興起的另一項證明。這些與維修咖啡館的服務品項相較之下，象徵其他小眾專業化漸漸崛起。像是Remade in Edinburgh，著重在服飾與工藝品；Free Geek Chicago及倫敦的Restart Project皆專精於手機電子產品的修復與升級，而不用再破費買新的。現在網路上都可以找到很多關於維修的資源，從基本的縫補衣物到複雜的電腦、手機、相機甚至是卡車的維修教學。有些維修愛好者更以維修代替購買做長達一年的自我挑戰。

這是循環經濟，傻瓜！

維修咖啡館的創辦人Martine Postma說過：「在循環經濟中，維修咖啡館融入得恰到好處。」維修拒絕「買─用─丟(buy-use-dispose)」模式，目標讓資源不斷回收利用，而非壞了就丟。.

倫敦的The Restart Project 談到他們在循環經濟中的小貢獻，像是維修物品，分享技能，讓回收利用達到最大值，並將維修與保養變成當地經濟開發的一部份。也許丟掉壞掉的東西是最簡單快速的方法，但這麼做不但花錢，也少了原本該有的驚喜。

 

【Author：Jade Herriman】

雪梨科技大學首席研究員，長期投入永續發展相關議題。

[/tab]
[tab title=”English”]

Repair cafes are about fixing thingsincluding the economy

Imagine your smartphone’s screen gets smashed, or your bike wheel gets buckled, or your favourite boots get a hole in them. What do you do? You could buy a replacement. Or you could join the worldwide trend of taking your broken stuff to a “repair café”.

The Bower Reuse and Repair Centre has just launched Australia’s first repair café, in Sydney’s inner west. The crowd-funded project will hold weekly repair sessions focusing on bikes, furniture and electrical items.

The first repair café was set up in Amsterdam in 2009, and the Repair Café Foundation says there are now more than 400 around the world.

What is a repair café?

A repair café is a free face-to-face meeting of skilled volunteers and local residents who want things fixed. Many run as a weekly, monthly or seasonal “drop-in” space at a local workshop or community centre, or offer stalls at a local fair or park. Visitors bring broken items from home and watch, learn or help as the repairs get done. Some things are fixed during the event, while for more challenging items people might be referred to local speciality repair shops.

Volunteers aren’t necessarily tradespeople but they are tinkerers – people who love to work with objects. Many people who love bikes have learned how to repair and maintain them; others can sew, alter and transform old clothes; still others are fascinated by how watches work.

Up and running in Sydney’s inner west. Jade Herriman, CC BY

 

In this sense, repair is a natural extension of understanding, and a creative process that gives immense satisfaction. Many visitors to repair cafés end up becoming repairers themselves.

The list of items successfully repaired at repair cafés is huge: bikes, clothing, cameras, mobile phones, computers, lawnmowers, luggage, lamps, toasters, CD players, microwaves – basically, almost anything you can physically bring along.

Why bother?

Our relationship with material objects has changed dramatically in the generations since wartime Britons were told to “make do and mend”. Simple repairs – resoling a shoe, mending a hole in a dress or gluing the leg of a chair – became less common as the disposable culture developed beyond small items like razors and pens, to include clothes, furniture and electronics. Mending came to be seen as old-fashioned and unnecessary, and cheap mass-production meant that anything less than perfect could be thrown away and replaced.

Last year, according to the ABS, Australians sent more than half a million tonnes of leather and textiles to landfill – more than ten times the amount that was reused or recycled. But as British researchers conclude, reusing old clothes reduces environmental impact and boosts social equity.

A culture of repair

Fixing things can be fun. Jade Herriman, CC BY

 

Mending represents a deliberate attempt to resist the throwaway culture. Repair cafés get people talking and give them the chance to network and learn about the local resources available. And, perhaps most surprisingly for anyone who considers mending to be some kind of frugal drudgery, repair cafés can be fun and creative. After one event in Palo Alto, California, organisers wrote on their blog:

Visitors to the Repair Cafe were delighted. It seems we really struck a chord with people – not only touching their desire to do something positive about their accumulated, broken stuff, but also appealing to the desire people have for this kind of community participation. The event also sparked lots of ideas among different people who came by – partnerships with other community groups, a community tool library, and advice on how to do things better next time. Most of all, though, everyone just had fun.

Meanwhile, repair café organisers in Brighton, UK stress that:

Repairing is not only a creative and political activity – creating a sense of empowerment and independence – it is also a way of creating community cohesion and reducing waste.

New approaches to old stuff

This wave of 21st-century DIY enthusiasm is also evident in the rise of the Maker Movement, Hackerspace and other networks for hobbyists, students, or enthusiasts.

While repair cafés are general, other similar projects are more specialised, such as Remade in Edinburgh, which focuses on clothes and crafts, and Free Geek Chicago and the London-based Restart Project, which help people repair and upgrade their own phones and electronics without buying new ones.

Online, there is a host of resources about repair – from the basics of mending clothes, to detailed and complex repair guides for computers, phones, games consoles, cameras, and even trucks. Some “fixers” have challenged themselves to make it the entire basis of their lifestyle.

It’s the circular economy, stupid

“In a circular economy, repair cafés fit right in”, says the movement’s original founder Martine Postma. In rejecting the linear model of buy-use-dispose, the circular economy aims to keep resources moving around in the economy, rather than shunting them through it to a dead end, where they are lost to valuable use.

The Restart Project describes efforts such as theirs as the “inner circle of the circular economy” – small-scale solutions that involve sharing skills to develop a local economy of maintenance and repair, before items are even considered for recycling.

It might be quicker and easier to throw stuff in the bin, but it’s more expensive and less fun too.

 

【Author：Jade Herriman】

Jade is a Research Principal at University of Technology Sydney. She has 15 years experience in sustainability research and project management, with a background in environmental biology and applied environmental management in local government.

[/tab]
[/tabs]

 

圖片來源：《The conversation》

原文經合作媒體：《The conversation》授權編譯，未經許可不得轉載

 

【國外編輯部專欄】美國名校值得你花這麼多錢嗎？

 

作者/ Chris Klundt

編譯/李育嘉

[tabs]
[tab title=”中文”]

美國名校值得你花這麼多錢嘛？

大學教育的價值是什麼？通常人們的回答，都是為了學習而學習，以及職業訓練，然而，認為一張25萬美元的耶魯畢業證書就能找到好工作的想法已逐漸煙消雲散。(註1)

常春藤盟校這星期寄出了入學通知書，數千名學生迫不及待想知道他們是否獲得這僅僅只有6%至14%的錄取機會。然而，以盟校成員之一的哈佛大學為例，伴隨錄取喜悅而來的是每年高達69,600美元的學費。每位學生平均貸款近30,000美元，然而畢業生失業率卻高居8.5%。

由於這些數據，上大學的目的漸漸地受到質疑。華爾街日報近來指出，學貸壓力和萎靡的就業市場迫使學生早早敲定主修科目，如醫療衛生或法律等『實用』系所。北卡羅來納大學的英文教授也指出，以就業為導向的高等教育觀念日趨高漲。為了應對此一趨勢，已有教育機構提出全新的大學教育理念：『培養深度思考能力，思考乃人生最大的樂趣，也能展現全人的意義。』

文化修養不容忽視，但以該理由為選擇科系的依據是很奢侈的想法。高漲的學費已超過許多家庭可負擔的範圍，是該慎重思考學位的實質效益。高等教育培養我們有形的專業技術和無形的思辨能力，但名校學位值得我們為此扛債嗎？

數字會說話

雖然中輟生馬克祖克伯(Facebook創辦人)現在成了億萬富翁，但平均而言，大學畢業生終其一生還是賺得比高中畢業生多很多。

美國薪水調查公司Payscale最近以投資報酬來評比大學，位於加州的私立哈維穆德學院(Harvey Mudd College)被選為第一。畢業校友可在20年內賺回約985,300美元(四年花費約237,700美元)。前15名有史丹佛、麻省理工、普林斯頓等大學。除了私立名校外，上榜的公立學校如科羅拉多礦業學院、喬治亞理工學院和密蘇里科技大學花費都不到哈佛的二分之一，但20年後的報酬可超過100,000美元。數據證明了比起選校，所選的主修才是影響投資報酬率的的因子。

看不見的優點

大學培養學子批判思考和人際關係，其所帶來的社會經濟效益跟有形的專業技術一樣重要。在高度競爭的工作環境下，職業流動性亦相應提高。 人力公司Jobvite發現具高度職業流動性的工作者，也就是能為了迎合市場需求而輕易轉換工作性質者，都擁有大學文憑。大學拓展學生的視野，看到更廣闊的職涯發展，而不單單只是侷限在單一領域。

職業流動性強的人所擁有的特質從學生時期就看得出來。不論在課堂還是在宿舍的經歷，都不是13周程式營可比擬的。大學可以遇到多樣的同儕、吸收大量的資訊、跟碰撞出新穎的想法。

但值得花這麼多錢嗎?

說了這麼多，但還是有個疑問尚未解決。為了念大學而背負沉重的學貸，值得嗎?

以我自己為例：高中時我對生物醫學比較有興趣，也順利申請上約翰‧霍普金斯和威斯康辛大學。約翰·霍普金斯大學的生物醫學排名全國第六，但是每年學費要26,000美元(現在則要47,000美元)。雖然威斯康辛大學排名只有第十，但可以讓我早一步獲得進入醫學院的資格，而且每年學費只要3,200美元(現在為8,650美元)。兩間學校都有頂尖師資和專業的教學設施。四個名次的差距值得我花22,800美元來彌補?最後我選擇了威斯康辛大學，在那裡盡情發掘我的電腦才能。畢業時我沒有任何貸款，還弄了個行動學習程式，就是StudyBlue。

我想不到250,000美元換來的名校學歷能保證甚麼好工作。Jobvite的執行長Dan Finnegan指出前20所頂尖大學將他們大部分的畢業生送往矽谷的公司，其中只有4間為私立。聖荷西州立大學的排名還在史丹佛和卡內基美隆大學之上。

當今年的高中畢業生於2019年完成大學學業時，希望屆時學校已經教會他們深思熟慮和實用主義。 我希望他們明白一個主修電腦科學的學生將會精通程式碼、可以為下一個熱門APP構思出好點子，但同時她也該知道誰是莎士比亞。如果無法從課室上接觸到莎士比亞，或許可以從校刊和同儕間的交流認識這名傑出的劇作家。同樣地，身為一個中文系的學生，除了通曉各詩詞小說外，他也該具備從數據中抽絲剝繭找資料的能力。要達到上述目標，我相信不需要花到25萬美元。

註1: 美國私立名校四年下來的學費約25萬美金。

 

[ 作者介紹：Chris Klundt ]

StudyBlue的共同創辦人暨執行長。StudyBlue為線上學習平台，學生可以製作閃示卡、上傳及分享學習資源。

[/tab]
[tab title=”English”]

College Acceptance Letters Out But Are You In For The Debt?

What is a college education truly worth? The answer lies somewhere between learning for learning’s sake and vocational training. But the days of considering a $250k Yale degree useful are quickly vanishing.

Ivy League acceptance emails just went out this week. Thousands have waited anxiously to find out if they were in the lucky 6-14% of applicants getting the nod. But in the wake of post-acceptance euphoria is the sobering reality of annual fees of up to $69,600, in the case of Harvard. The average student debt is quickly approaching $30,000 while the unemployment rate for young grads is at an unsettlingly high 8.5%.

With these statistics in mind, the purpose of attending college — if at all — is increasingly questioned.

Venture capitalist Peter Thiel famously pays students to leave school to pursue entrepreneurial projects.

A recent Wall Street Journal study suggests the pressure of rising debt and a weak job market is prompting students to declare majors earlier and shift toward “practical” subjects such as health or law enforcement.

In response to this increasingly popular view of higher education as job preparation, another camp has championed the renewed importance of college in “developing the muscle of thoughtfulness, the use of which will be the greatest pleasure in life and will also show what it means to be fully human,” according to one UNC English professor.

We can’t discount cultural enrichment, but choosing a major simply for that reason is a luxury. As tuition soars out of reach for many families, it’s worth considering the tangible — and intangible — returns of a degree. Higher education should equip us both with tangible skills and the critical thinking to identify practical situations in which to apply these skills. College is still worth something — just not decades of debt for a brand name diploma.

A case for college: the numbers

In light of skyrocketing tuition, the natural place to start is measurable value. We celebrate dropouts-turned-billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg, but the average four-year college graduate still earns more over a lifetime than the average high school graduate — a record high of 98% more an hour in 2013, according to one study. On an individual level, those with college degrees see higher earnings than if they had only graduated high school.

Of course, these across-the-board gains vary by school. A recent Payscale ranking of colleges by return on investment gives the top spot to Harvey Mudd College, a private liberal arts college in California. Alumni can expect to see a return of $985,300 over twenty years (four years cost $237,700). The top 15 contains the usual suspects — Stanford, MIT, Princeton — but there’s a strong presence of public schools too. The Colorado School of Mines, Georgia Institute of Technology and Missouri University of Technology all cost less than half of Harvard, but have twenty-year returns of over $100,000 more. It’s a testament to the fact that major — not school — choice is the more valuable factor in justifying tangible ROI.

The intangibles

Just as important as college’s quantitative returns are the intangible ones, from valuable employee skills such as critical thinking and interpersonal relations to socioeconomic benefits. In today’s highly competitive workforce, job mobility is especially salient. A recent Jobvite study found the vast percentage of “high mobility” workers who readily change jobs to meet market demand have college educations. Rather than prepare students for single careers, college broadens the range of jobs and careers today’s graduates will have.

Many of the traits of high mobility workers are ingrained in students over the course of their college years. There are experiences, both in the classroom and the dorm, that a thirteen-week code camp can’t replicate.  A diverse collection of peers and ideas demand critical thinking, interpersonal relations and working towards expectations, to name a few.

Is it worth the cost?

Considering higher education’s value-adds, from tangible ROI to job and social mobility, there’s still an important question to be asked. Is a college degree worth going into debt? Not in my experience.

As a high school senior interested in biomedical engineering, I was accepted by Johns Hopkins, Northwestern, Washington University in St. Louis and the University of Wisconsin. Johns Hopkins’ program was ranked sixth in the nation, but annual tuition cost roughly $26,000 (now $47,000). Wisconsin — which offered me early acceptance to medical school — was ranked tenth. It cost $3,200 (now $8,650). Both schools had top-notch faculty and facilities. Was a difference of four spots in rankings worth an extra $22,800 a year, not including room and board? Not to me. I chose Wisconsin, where I discovered computer science. I graduated debt-free with an idea for a mobile learning app that grew into StudyBlue. I used the coding skills I learned to make a living, but also applied my speech and debate skills to raise funding and make connections.

I can’t think of any jobs guaranteed by a $250,000 degree from a “brand name” school. According to CEO Dan Finnegan, Jobvite found that of the top twenty schools sending the most graduates to Silicon Valley companies, only four are private. San Jose State tops the list ahead of Stanford or Carnegie Mellon.

When this year’s high school seniors graduate in 2019, I hope college will have taught them both thoughtfulness and pragmaticism. I hope they’ll know that a computer science major can become fluent in code or conceive an idea for the next great app. But she can — and should — also know Shakespeare, if not in the classroom then perhaps in a campus production or a conversation with classmates. An English major can become fluent in sonnets or novels. But he can — and should — also be able to write for different demographics or find stories from a set of data. And neither one needs to pay $250,000 to do it.

 

[ Author：Chris Klundt  ]

He is the cofounder and CEO of StudyBlue, an online studying platform allowing students to create flashcards and upload and share study materials.

[/tab]
[/tabs]

 

圖片來源：flickr@Simon Cunningham

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

 

【國外編輯部專欄】印度技職教育的瓶頸與挑戰

 

作者/Santosh Mehrotra

編譯/李育嘉

[tabs]
[tab title=”中文”]

印度技職教育的瓶頸與挑戰

印度的技職教育須盡快擴張，以因應五六百萬青年勞動力和多變的經濟。然而有53%的印度勞動力若不是文盲，就是只接受過基礎教育。除此之外，只有近10%的人擁有職業相關技能。如果排除掉農業勞動力的話則上升到20%，僅計算工業勞動力的話甚至來到44%。這個百分比的增長看似漂亮，但跟狀況相近的國家對比下來卻相形見拙，還須再加強。

印度的職訓可分成四類，第一類為侷限於職前教育的產業培訓機構，過去7年內增長至12000所，其中有2000所為公立，其餘為私立，大部分的私立機構尚未受到官方承認。第二類是自2010年起由國家技能發展局（National Skill Development Corporation, NSDC）（註1）輔導且大量成長的職訓中心。雖然由政府贊助，這些中心還是以營利性組織為雛型。第三，高中11和12年級設有技職相關課程，但僅有5%的適齡學生會申請。自2012年起，印度政府已經頒布新的教育綱要，國中9和10年級也將引進技術課程。最後一類是公司內部的在職訓練，但僅有16%的大公司會提供，中國的企業則有85%。

印度勞動力中大多數人都是靠自己摸索學習技能，擴展職訓課程和建立承認原有技能並結合學習的系統屬當務之急。我帶領政府團隊所制訂的國家技能認證綱要（The National Skills Qualification Framework）便是職訓課程發展的依歸。

相較他國，印度勞工的生產力相對低。如果印度想成為全球生產大國之一，勢必得提高生產力。政府、業界、私立職訓中心三方應相互配合，創造出一個重視生產和技術的環境。

要增加人口紅利（註2），就要先了解印度現在面臨的技術斷層。過去十年經濟起飛，非農業的職缺和勞動力等比成長，但勞動力素質才是重點。如果技術密集的產業找不到能勝任的勞動力，製造商會逐漸轉向資本密集，如此一來，印度經濟成長的模式便會受限於印度本身的優勢，也就是勞動力的增長。

印度的學徒制度僅有大公司提供，意謂著全國四億八千五百萬的勞工裡，只有不到三十萬名的正式學徒，其餘皆為非正式學徒，常常被上司剝削。

業界唯有投入更多的資源和心力在職業教育和訓練，才能改善現有的不足。不論企業規模大小，應設法提供完善的內部訓練和改善人資政策，將雇用專業人員列為重點項目，並建立獎勵制度。除此之外，推薦合適人選任職於職校和教育機構，提高具實務經驗的老師的比例。


註1：NSDC是一家公私合營企業(政府持股49%、私人持股51%)，執行全國性教育訓練計畫，目標是在未來10年內培育5億名具備技能素質的人力投入21項產業。該21項產業分別為汽車及零組件業、電子業、紡織業、皮革業、生化業、珠寶業、營建業、食品加工業、手工業、建材業、IT軟體業、外包業、觀光旅遊業、物流業、零售業、房地產業、媒體業、醫療美容業、金融業、教育業及其他等。來源：全球台商網

註2：所謂「人口紅利」，是指一個國家的勞動年齡人口佔總人口比重較大，撫養率比較低，為經濟發展創造了有利的人口條件，整個國家的經濟呈高儲蓄、高投資和高增長的局面。一國人口生育率的迅速下降在造成人口老齡化加速的同時，少兒撫養比亦迅速下降，勞動年齡人口比例上升，在老年人口比例達到較高水平之前，將形成一個勞動力資源相對豐富、撫養負擔輕、於經濟發展十分有利的「黃金時期」，人口經濟學家稱之為「人口紅利」。 來源：台灣維基


[作者介紹：Santosh Mehrotra ]

新德里Jawaharlal Nehru大學經濟系教授。著有India’s Skills Challenge: Reforming Vocational Education and Training to Harness the Demographic Dividend

 

參考資料

[/tab]
[tab title=”English”]

India’s Skills Challenge: Reforming Vocational Education and Training to Harness the Demographic Dividend

The Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) system in India   needs to expand very rapidly if it is to serve the interests of the 5-6  million youth joining the labour force every year, and of an economy that is both growing rapidly as well diversifying fast.

However, the majority of India’s workforce either has less than primary education or is illiterate (53%). Moreover, less than 10% of the workforce has acquired vocational skills, although that proportion is higher if we take only the non-agricultural workforce into account (20%), and even higher if we take only the industrial workforce into account (44%). While the increase in percentage seems good it is far below comparable countries and needs to increase.

India’s skill development system has four parts. First, a very narrowly based pre-employment training system of Industrial Training Institutes (grown to about 12,000 in the last 7 years, of which 2,000 are public, the rest private). Second, there are a rapidly growing number of formal vocational training providers  that are being incubated by the National Skill Development Corporation after 2010, based on a for-profit business model, though somewhat subsidised by government. Third, vocational education is offered in senior secondary schools in classes 11-12 (which barely enrol 5% of the relevant age cohort); since 2012 government secondary schools have also begun to offer vocational education in classes 9-10, thanks to the introduction of the National Skills Qualification Framework. Finally, there is the in-firm training provided on recruitment by companies (but only 16% of Indian companies provides such training, and that too only large ones, in contrast to 85% of firms in China).

India must therefore expand TVET to cater to the majority already in the labour force who have informally acquired skills, so that recognition of prior skills and learning becomes systemic. The National Skills Qualification Framework (the base document for which was drafted by a task force of the government led by the author) makes provisions for this monumental task.

The productivity of India’s workforce is lower than many comparator countries. If India is to become a major manufacturing power, productivity in the economy needs to improve significantly. We have to create an ecosystem that promotes and rewards skills and productivity;  Government, industry and private vocational training providers need to work together to realize this objective.

To realize India’s demographic dividend we need to meet India’s skills challenge. Since economic growth took off over the last decade, non-agricultural jobs have been expanding at a rate roughly comparable to the rate at which the labour force is growing. However, it is the quality of jobs that are a matter of concern. If skilled workers don’t become available to industry at a rate comparable to the growth of demand for skills, manufacturers will increasingly resort to more capital-intensive technologies, which will lock India into a pattern of growth that is synch with its comparative advantage – relative abundant labour power.

Only large firms offer apprenticeships, and in a country with a workforce of 485 million, there are under 300,000 formal apprentices. The rest are all informal apprentices, who tend to be exploited by their employers. Changes are certainly needed in the Apprenticeship Act 1961.

While some progress towards reforming TVET in India has been made, a huge and broad ranging agenda for reform lies before the government and industry.

Industry needs to get involved to a much greater extent than ever before in TVET. Both large industries, many of which are engaged in in-house training, as well as small and medium enterprises, will need to find ways to increase in-firm training. Industry must make hiring formally trained skilled personnel an integral part of its human resource policy and include processes and practice to reward skills. Industry will also need to offer its human resources to vocational secondary schools, industrial training institutes and private vocational training providers, so that the number of instructors with practical experience increases by a very large number.

[ Author： Santosh Mehrotra ]

He is Professor of Economics, Centre for Labour and Informal Sector Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi. Previously, he was Director-General at the National Institute of Labour Economics Research and Development (NILERD, earlier called Institute of Applied Manpower Research), Planning Commission of India.

[/tab]
[/tabs]

 

圖片來源：flickr@GlobalPartnership for Education

原文刊登於《NORRAG NEWSBite》，經作者Santosh Mehrotra授權編譯，未經許可不得轉載

 

芬蘭教育的成功並非奇蹟

 

作者/Pasi Sahlberg

編譯/李明洋

[tabs]
[tab title=”中文”]

芬蘭教育的成功並非奇蹟

芬蘭自從2000年的PISA開始，以及其後歷屆PISA的優異表現，不僅讓芬蘭人對自身的教育成就改觀，也讓全世界對芬蘭的教育成就改觀。

無論是國內或國外的教育工作者莫不想瞭解，到底芬蘭教育和其他國家有何不同。結果卻是令人感到相當驚訝，因為芬蘭既沒有針對自己的教改政策進行研究，也沒有透過研究所產出的觀點來主導教育政策的執行。相反的，芬蘭的研究者乃是參照理論及借鏡他國的經驗(來進行教改)。即使如此，或是正因如此，芬蘭的教育體系乃經歷了轉型，並從中獲取了3個重要的啟示:

首先，芬蘭教育體系的成功是參酌自他國教育體系的經驗。芬蘭現代化的公共教育係1860年代，由德國和瑞典的教育體系所演化來的。學校教育的架構、課程、職業訓練乃至於就業的整套構想和模式，都深受這兩個國家的理論和實務影響。

雖然在芬蘭的教育體系中，諸如高中階段的模組化課程、以表現為本位的職業認證，以及依學生需求外加10年級課程等設計，皆為芬蘭自己的發明，然而，現今芬蘭在教學方法、學生評量，以及學校領導等方面，絕大多數都是來自於國外。

自從1980年代開始，美國的教育思潮也對芬蘭教育產生重大影響。事實上，我也是將美國教育中諸如合作學習等偉大的創新引進芬蘭的人士之一。芬蘭當局也頗常參考”經濟合作與發展組織(Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD)”、歐洲委員會(European Commission)和聯合國教科文組織(United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, UNISCO)的構想。簡而言之，芬蘭人一直都向世界各國的教育學習。

其次，芬蘭的教育政策均是在中央教育當局、地方教育主管機關，以及代表教師的芬蘭教師工會(Finland’s Trade Union of Education)三方面的密切合作下所訂定與付諸施行。早從1990年代初，這三方面歷經了4年的協商與規劃，將芬蘭的諸多教育政策予以落實。而在規劃與討論期間，商業領袖、非政府組織、研究者和家長也都參與其中。於是，在凝聚各方的共識之下，芬蘭的決策者乃遵照著各方的期盼與願景，讓改革朝向永續發展的方向前進。正因如此，雖然芬蘭從1970年代迄今，已換過了20幾位教育部長，但教育政策的主要原則卻變化不大。

最後，芬蘭的教育政策中，最為關鍵的就是要提供公平和積極的學習機會給每一位孩童，使其享有安全且幸福的福祉。每一所芬蘭的學校都提供孩童足夠的營養，使其健康、安全且快樂地成長。芬蘭教育當局無視於國際慣例，例如他們不贊同透過考試及排名來提升教育品質，而是著重於教師培訓和師資穩定；他們看重和教師及工會代表之間的相互合作；他們重視及早和持續介入學習障礙學生的學習；他們強調全方位的教育課程；他們也公平地分配經費給全國各地的學校。

有許多人認為，不可能在要求學生(學習成效)卓越的同時，又能落實公平的教育。就芬蘭的經驗，如同加拿大和日本，只要(主政者)睿智地規劃，以及持續致力於教育專業人才的培育，要讓教育臻於卓越將是可能的。就像過去，很多人不相信，甚至連芬蘭人也不相信芬蘭擁有成功的教育體系，但是PISA的結果終讓這些質疑的人閉上了嘴。

雖然芬蘭在教改過程中，有許多措施是刻意為之的，但其中也有著運氣的成分。蘇聯在1990年代早期垮台後，造成了嚴重的經濟蕭條，但這樣的結果卻促使芬蘭人重新反省過往的教育思維，於是開始廣設學校，給予教師專業自主權、落實個別化的課程，以及在中學階段規劃具彈性的學習管道。

芬蘭堅持走自己的路，著重的是公平、專業及合作，拒絕標準化測驗及學校和教師的績效責任制。當初，芬蘭的教學與課程乃借鏡於美國、加拿大、德國、英國、瑞典及其他國家，如今，芬蘭則成為其他國家制定教育政策時，汲取經驗的對象。

 

【作者介紹：Pasi Sahlberg】

Pasi Sahlberg為芬蘭籍教育學者，擔任芬蘭國際行動與合作中心(Finland’s Centre for International Mobility and Cooperation)主任，並兼任Helsinki及Oulu大學教授。此外，亦是國際著名教改學者，曾任職於世界銀行(World Bank)，並被許多國家聘請為教育改革顧問。著有暢銷書”Finnish Lessons: What Can the World Learn from Educational Change in Finland“及該書續集”Finnish Lessons 2.0: What Can the World Learn from Educational Change in Finland?”。

[/tab]
[tab title=”English”]

FINLAND’S EDUCATIONAL SUCCESS IS NO MIRACLE

Finland’s stellar results for the first cycle of pisa in 2000 and for each subsequent cycles of the triennial international test have dramatically altered domestic, as well as international opinion. Educators at home and abroad have been forced to assess what Finland does differently. What may come as a surprise is that Finland has neither engaged in researching its own, unique reform measures, nor generated change-knowledge to steer education policy implementation. Instead, Finnish researchers have relied on the theories and insights of their international peers. In spite of this, or perhaps because of it, we experienced a transformation of our education system, from which three important lessons have emerged.

First, part of Finland’s success has stemmed from studying other education systems. Since the birth of public education in the 1860s educational ideas and models from Germany and Sweden shaped Finnish education system and policies. The very structure of schools, curricula, and vocational learning-for-work programs were influenced by theories and practices in these and other countries. Although there are some Finnish inventions in the current education system—such as modular rather than annual curricula for upper-secondary students, performance-based vocational qualifications, and a supplementary year of school between lower and upper secondary school for those in need—most innovation in current pedagogy, student assessment, and school leadership originates beyond our borders.

Education ideas from the United States have played an especially significant role since the 1980s. In fact, I am one of the domestic messengers who imported great American educational innovation, including cooperative learning, to Finland. Finnish authorities have likewise made significant use of ideas from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, or oecd; the European Commission; and the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, or unesco. In short, the Finns have been open to learning from other education systems.

Second, formulation and implementation of education policies have been built upon close cooperation with education authorities, municipalities that govern the schools, and—through Finland’s Trade Union of Education—teachers. Since the early 1990s, education development strategies have been implemented through four-year development plans that are a result of a consultation process with these parties. The voices of other stakeholders—business leaders, non-governmental associations, researchers, and parents—are always included in these development plans. This consensus-based policymaking process has guaranteed sustainability of reforms and maintained the focus on a singular, shared vision of ongoing reforms. There have been over 20 different ministers of education and government coalitions since the 1970s in Finland, but the main principles of education policy have changed little.

Finally, the key driver of education development policy in Finland has been providing equal and positive learning opportunities and secure well-being for all children. Nutrition, health, safety and overall happiness belong all Finnish schools. Finnish authorities, in this regard, have defied international convention. They have not endorsed student testing and school ranking as the path to improvement, but rather focused on teacher preparation and retention; collaboration with teachers and their union representatives; early and regular intervention for children with learning disabilities; well-rounded curricula; and equitable funding of schools throughout the country. Many have argued that it is not possible to achieve excellence in student learning and equity in education simultaneously. The experience in Finland—as well as of that in Canada and Japan—shows that with smart and sustainable efforts and professionally committed personnel in schools that excellence is possible. Even to many Finns success once seemed unlikely, but the pisa results have silenced those in doubt.

While most elements of Finnish education reforms have been deliberate, there has also been a measure of good luck. The deep economic and financial crisis after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s created an opportunity for Finland to question its conventional thinking about education. This opened the doors to a rapid increase of school and teacher autonomy, customized curricula, and flexible learning pathways in secondary education.

By rejecting standardized testing and concomitant school and teacher accountability measures, Finland has instead charted its own path by focusing on equity, professionalism, and collaboration. Much as Finland has learned from the United States, Canada, Germany, England, Sweden, and other nations about pedagogy and curricula, Finland may now be looked to for lessons about educational policy.

 

【Author :Pasi Sahlberg】

Pasi Sahlberg is a Finnish educator and scholar. He worked as a teacher, teacher educator, and policy adviser in Finland and was actively engaged in planning and implementing education reforms in Finland in the 1990s.

[/tab]
[/tabs]

 

更多關於芬蘭教育

【國外編輯部專欄】主題式跨界學習 芬蘭教育再進化

先求平等再講卓越的芬蘭教育

美國人何以一再忽視芬蘭教育的成功?(上)

美國人何以一再忽視芬蘭教育的成功?(下)

 

圖片來源：The Atlantic

原文刊登於《pasisahlberg.com》，經作者Pasi Sahlberg授權編譯，未經許可不得轉載