Dieter Timmermann Financing Lifelong Learning.

1. Dieter Timmermann Financing Lifelong Learning. Results and Recommendations of the Expert Commission on Financing Lifelong Learning Prof. Dr. Dieter Timmermann Universität Bielefeld, Universitätstrasse 25, 33615 Bielefeld Tel.: 0521-2001/ 2000, e-mail: dieter.timmermann@uni-bielefeld.de

2. Contents • Mandate and Objectives of the Commission • Why do we need more Learning after a first vocational or higher education degree? • Financing Instruments: A Survey • Architecture of the Recommendations

3. New Financing Strategies A sound holistic Concept Realistic Models Consideration of entrepreneurial and societal Requirements Consideration of distributional as well as redistributional margins Strengthening individual responsibility for learning and participation Strengthening individual wilingness and readiness to learn Promotion of vocational, general, political and cultural learning Considering the educational chances of education-distant and disadvantaged groups Focus on lifelong learning for adults 1.1 The Mandate

4. Prof. Dr. Uschi Backes-Gellner, Business Economics, in particular empirical methods of personell economics, University of Zürich Prof. Dr. Gisela Färber, Professor of General Economics and Economic Finance, Deutsche Hochschule für Verwaltungswissenschaften Speyer, (Vice Chair of Commission) Prof. Dr. Bernhard Nagel, Professor of Economic Law, University of Kassel Prof. Dr. Gerhard Bosch, Vice President of the Institute of Work and Technologie in the Science Center of Northrhein-Westfalia, Professor of Sociologie, University Duisburg-Essen Prof. Dr. Dieter Timmermann, Rector of Bielefeld University, Professor of the Economics of Education, Educational Planning and Educational Politics, (Chair of the Commission) 1.2 The Commission

5. Fostering Innovations, Poductivity growth and economic expansion by Innovations induced by learning Enhancing competitiveness of companies, in particular of SME‘s Supporting the employability of individuals and promoting individual talents and potentials Improving the opportunities of societal participation and civil society engagement Strengthening social cohesion Strengthening the willingness of individuals to learn, strengthening their self-responsibility by fostering their competencies to choose, decide and compete in the educational, commodity and labor markets 1.3 The Rational for LLL: the Objectives

6. 1.4 The Objectives ´ Balance betweenparticipation in LLL and financing burden ´ Sustainability of financing effects ´ efficient provision of an effective and manifold supply of learning opportunities ´ Creating transparency with respect to suppliers, programs, career paths, relevance and value of certificates, and quality of programs as well as courses Conclusion: Financing LLL neither only for economic promotion nor only for support of the disadvantaged individuals resp. groups

7. 4 information trips to France, England, Denmark, Sweden, Italy 24 Meetings of the commission Hearings with 33 experts Placement of 9 expert opinions 1.5 Sources of Evidence

8. 1.6 Sources of Evidence Expert opinions ordered by the commission: • Ressourcen für die allgemeine Weiterbildung in Deutschland, P. Faulstich, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, 2002 • Datenlage und Interpretation der Weiterbildung in Deutschland L. Bellmann, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung. Nürnberg, 2002 • Nichtteilnahme an beruflicher Weiterbildung. Motive, Beweggründe, Hindernisse, H. Schröder, S. Schiel, F. Aust, Institut für angewandte Sozialwissenschaften (infas), Bonn, 2003 • Analyse bildungsbedingter Transfers in Deutschland. Untersuchung des Transfersystems anhand von Modellhaushalten, Sparverhalten privater Haushalte, T. Arens, H. Quinke, Fraunhofer Institut Angewandte Informationstechnik, Forschungsgruppe MIKMOD, Sankt Augustin, 2003 • Berufliche Weiterbildung in West- und Ostdeutschland. Teilnehmer, Struktur und individueller Ertrag, F. Büchel, M. Pannenberg, Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung u. DIW, Berlin, 2003 • Lebenslanges Lernen für Ältere. Finanzielle Anreize und Ansätze, C. Barkholdt, Universität Dortmund, Institut für Soziologie, Lehrstuhl für soziale Gerontologie, Dortmund, 2003 • Auswirkungen institutioneller Rahmenbedingungen auf das individuelle und betriebliche Qualifizierungsverhalten am Beispiel der Gesundheitswirtschaft, J. Hilber,. Institut Arbeit und Technik, Gelsenkirchen, 2003 • Kostenschätzung zu den Empfehlungen, T. Arens, Fraunhofer Institut Angewandte Informationstechnik, Forschungsgruppe MIKMOD, Sankt Augustin, 2004

9. Front-end model of education systems The obsolescence rate of education is accelerating Necessity of multiple change of vocations/ occupations 2.1 Why more LLL? No far reaching arguments

10. Fostering innovations, productivity and economic growth Enhancing individual employability in times of Aging and shrinking society (im)migration Differenciated development paths and biografies of individuals Improvement of participation opportunities 2.2 Why more LLL? The most important arguments:

11. 2.3 Why more LLL ? Fostering Economic Growth(I) • Growth rates of GNP clearly under average of comparable countries, innovation and growth weakness as a consequence of underinvestement in education and LLL • Since 20 years productivity growth below average of OECD and EU countries, also in high technology branches • Since 1986 (2,15%) shrinking proportion of total public and private expenditures for LLL of GNP (1999 = 1,62%) • In a comparative international perspective sub-proportional educational expenditures, measured in percentage of GNP (private plus public) as well as measured in percentage of the public budget (only public outlays) • Investments in human capital and in reasearch and development stagnate in their relative importance • Investments in education fall behind investments in real capital during the 1990‘s

12. 2.4 Why more LLL ?

13. 2.5 Why more LLL ?

14. 2.6 Why more LLL ?

15. 2.7 Why more LLL ?

16. 2.8 Why more LLL ?

17. 2.9 Why more LLL ?

18. 2.10 Why more LLL ?

19. 2.11 Why more LLL ?

20. 2.12 Warum mehr LLL? Promotion of economic growth (II) • Since 1992 (until 2001) slightly decreasing expenditures of public and private employers for LLL (in absolute and relative terms). • Strong deficits at SME‘s (about 75 % abstinent) • LLL-expenditures per head of german firms by far below EU average, proportion of LLL-active firms also below EU average CVTS II) • Focus of in-company learning on informal learning as well as on short-term adaptive learning hampers innovations at the work place

21. 2.13 Why more LLL? Strengthening the individual Employability(I) • Employment (chances) depend(s) growingly on qualifications • Between 70 und 90 % participants in vocational LLL judge their participation as advantageous • Returns from LLL: • Lowering the unemployment risk for 20 to 44 years old worker and employees (West – 2%, East – 5%) • Growth of the gross monthly income by 4,5%, for men and women, fully employed and aged 20 to 44 years (West Germany), in East Germany by 7-8% also for 20 bis 64 year old men and women • Individual carreer leaps seen only for fully employed men in Westgermany (+2%)

22. 86,4 78,2 76,1 65 63,5 43,1 Men Women middle low high Source: Manpower Sample 2002 2. 14 Why more LLL? Increase of individual employability (II) Employment ratio according to qualification level (2002)

23. 2.15 Why more LLL? Increase of individual employability (III) Groups whose probability of participating in LLL is significantly below average • Persons with low or without formal vocational traning or occupational status, persons in low-knowledge or obsolescence-intensive occupations • Persons working in traditional work organisation • Persons without occupational status, being jobless or in precarious occupational status • Workers and employees in SME‘s • Women with children or health care obligations(LLL abstinence grows with numberf of childen) • Low income persons • Immigrants Surprising: Age and part-time employment have no particular effect on participation in LLL

24. 2.16 Why more LLL? Differenciated development pathways and biografies • 9,6% of all pupils leave schools without „main school certificat“ (2000/2001) – Tendency is slowly increasing • 25 % of annual initial vocational traning contracts are cut short (the 1984 rate was 14%) – 62% stay somewhere and somehow in the education system– the rest drops out and disappears • About 27 % of students drop out of their study (some move into jobs, some into another training paths) • High proportion of unskilled people among immigrants, immigration often connected with breaks of the education and work biographie Conclusion: High Need for a second Chance

25. 2.17 Why more LLL? • The german education system does by far not exhaust the learning and performance potential of its learners. • German enterprises do not exhaust the learning and performance potential of their employees compared to employers in partner countries. • During the coming decades the german population will age and shrink, and c.p. the speed of economic growth will be damped. • The active population will age. The average age of the employes and workers will increase, the ability and capability for innovations will more and more depend on an older and aging work force. • The level of total knowledge runs risk to get old, the stream of new knowledge may speed down. • In the light of the demografic development and the most recent discoveries about the learning abilities of adults a rethinking is necessary. It has to be acknowledged that older people are able to stay productive and to learn, even in their 70‘s. They learn differently from the youngsters.

28. 3.1 Financing instruments: a survey • Self financing by the lerner • From current income • Educational saving • loans • Single employer financing • Levy-grant systems, parafiscal funds solutions

29. 3.2 Financing instruments: a survey • State Financing alternatives • Institutional Financing • Direct subsidies • loans • Interest subsidies for loan takers • Amortisation subsidies for loan takers • Vouchers • Saving premia • Tax deduction, exemption, delay • Subsidies to LLL-costs

30. 3.3 Financing instruments: a survey • Findings • Ability of private households to save and invest correlates strongly with net-income and financial assets, lower 20% of Households not able to save • Competition between savings for education, home construction and retirement • Beyond the age of 30 financial support nearly only by tax regulations; exceptions: Bafög and AFBG; far more than 50% of public education transfers go to learners between 18. und 26. years of age, and mostly for general education

31. 3.4 Financing instruments: a survey • Institutional regulations are often driving forces behind training decisions • Product liability norms • Qualitäty standards und Qualitäty assurance • Prevention of accidents and health protection orders • Protection against unlawful dismissal • innovative work place and work environment, stimulating learning

32. 4.1 The architecture of the recommendations Recommendations(I) • Public support of general, political and cultural LLL, as long as of public interest • Supporting private educational saving for LLL, attractive interest rates as well as amortisation conditions • Expansion of general and vocational learning of adults with low income and wealth on grounds of a coherent financing system for LLL Schweden)

33. 4.2 The architecture of the recommendations

34. Making up for schooling degrees Making up for higher education degree Career promotion training Living expenses Living expenses Living expenses / course/ program subsidy: 50 subsidy:100 loan: 50 course Course program Subsidy: 35 loan: 65 free free Growing private interest 4.3 The architecture of the recommendations Differentiation of public support according to public and private interest

35. 4.4 The architecture of the recommendations Recommendations (II) • Promotion of LLL in Companies (protection against insolvency of LLL-accounts, levy-grant system for workers/ employees in precarious conditions, exemption right, right to return, „vouchers for SME‘s) • Promotion of LLL according to SGB III (flexible handling of mediation quota for target groups, flexible promotion of un- and semi-skilled workers, deference of unemployment compensation claims in case of LLL) • Instruments aimed at migrants, evacuees and young refugees (Integration courses, access to vocational education and training)

36. 4.5 The architecture of the recommendations Recommendations (III) • Uniform (nation-wide) regulations as to institutional settings (f.e. accreditation, educational profiling, qualitäty assurance, certification) • Rationing of publicly granted Learning time to be investigated • Expansion of Research about LLL • Creating environments in labor and product markets which foster learning

37. 4.6 The architecture of the recommendations Instruments can be combined, Necessary is a societal climate which helps to engage in education, i.e. in the families,in the media, in politics, last but not least in the companies, Recommendations feasable according to budget situation, realisable step by step, RESULT