3 results
5 - Teacher Unionism in Germany: Fragmented Competitors
-
- By Rita Nikolai, Humboldt-University Berlin, Kendra Briken, University of Strathclyde, Dennis Niemann, Bremen University
- Edited by Terry M. Moe, Stanford University, California, Susanne Wiborg, University College London
-
- Book:
- The Comparative Politics of Education
- Published online:
- 22 December 2016
- Print publication:
- 28 November 2016, pp 114-143
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
This chapter underscores the historically significant role that teachers unions have played in German education policy. As we will show, German teaching unionism is highly fragmented. In comparative social stratification research, Germany is considered a prototype of a stratified school system with distinct educational tracks and early academic selection (Schneider and Thieben, 2011). In contrast to most Western democracies, Germany has not yet introduced comprehensive schooling as a nationwide standard in secondary education (Wiborg, 2010). After the Second World War the Federal Republic of Germany reinstated the traditional tripartite school system comprising the Gymnasium, Realschule, and Hauptschule. After four years of elementary schooling, students were traditionally referred to distinct secondary educational tracks, each associated with a different curriculum and certificate. The academic track (Gymnasium) prepared pupils for the university entrance qualification (Abitur); the two other tracks prepared them for vocational training – with the shortest track (Hauptschule) primarily directed at crafts and manual occupations, and the middle track (Realschule) at technical and service occupations (Nikolai and West, 2013). Based on this tripartite school system, German teacher education is also highly stratified (Blömeke, 2002), and teachers unions have emerged around each school type of the German secondary school system. Accordingly, German teaching unionism is highly fragmented. However, two unions stand out as the leading lobby groups for teachers: the Trade Union of Education and Science (GEW, Gewerkschaft Erziehung und Wissenschaft) and the German Philological Association (DPhV, Deutscher Philologenverband). Together, they represent 23 percent (GEW) and 12 percent (DPhV) of the teaching workforce. They rely on different kinds of members and face each other as political counterparts. Since they are the leading collective actors in the realm of teaching unionism and vested interests, the remainder of this chapter will focus on the two.
Following this introduction, we discuss the historical developments of teacher unionism since the nineteenth century by outlining how certain legacies constituted paths in education policy and politics that have influenced Germany's teachers unions until today. We elaborate on the political agenda of teachers unions in the light of their vested interests (Moe, 2015) and their various opportunities for exerting influence in collective bargaining and in determining the duration of elementary schooling, school structures, and in influencing encompassing education reforms after the so-called ‘PISA shock’ of 2001.
Welfare Regimes and Education Regimes: Equality of Opportunity and Expenditure in the EU (and US)
- ANNE WEST, RITA NIKOLAI
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Social Policy / Volume 42 / Issue 3 / July 2013
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 30 January 2013, pp. 469-493
- Print publication:
- July 2013
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Education is crucially important for later outcomes but has received limited attention in comparative research on welfare states. In light of this, we present an exploratory analysis of education systems across fourteen EU countries and the US. This builds on existing work on educational institutions, educational outcomes and welfare regimes. We focus on institutional features associated with inequality of educational opportunity, including academic selection, tracking and public/private provision; on educational outcomes; and on education expenditure. Our quantitative analysis identifies four clusters of countries: the Nordic, Continental, Mediterranean and English-speaking, which bear similarities to those identified in the welfare states literature. Each ‘education regime’ is associated with particular institutional features, educational outcomes and levels of public expenditure. Our analysis suggests that further comparative research on education, viewed as a key component of the welfare state, is warranted.
Four - Towards social investment? Patterns of public policy in the OECD world
-
- By Rita Nikolai
- Edited by Nathalie Morel, Sciences Po, Bruno Palier, Sciences Po, Joakim Palme, Uppsala Universitet, Statsvetenskapliga institutionen, Sweden
-
- Book:
- Towards a Social Investment Welfare State?
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 01 September 2022
- Print publication:
- 30 November 2011, pp 91-116
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
The debate on social investment and activation policies implies a new perspective on the relationship between different social policy areas. From this perspective, economic and social change together with the fiscal constraints they produce necessitate the redrawing of boundaries between ‘active’ and ‘passive’ social policies. It is assumed that the ‘passive’ welfare state is being steadily restructured into an ‘activating’ welfare state guided by a social investment perspective (see Chapters Two and Three). The social investment approach has been formulated in terms of redeploying public spending from passive social transfers to investments in education and training, labour market activation measures, promotion of lifelong learning and other measures to reconcile work and family (Giddens, 1998; Esping-Andersen et al., 2002; Palier, 2006).
The questions addressed in this chapter are to what extent the social investment ‘turn’ actually finds expression in the social expenditure profile of welfare states? Which countries are social-investment oriented today and which are not? Furthermore, do we see some convergence towards a social investment approach? To answer our questions we start by discussing how we can identify social investment policies and their relative importance in various countries. We then trace the development of public social expenditure in 21 of the 34 OECD member states from 1980 to 2007. We focus on disaggregated programme expenditures and compare public expenditures for investment measures and compensation expenditures on the basis of the OECD Social Expenditure Database and the Education Spending Database as a way to compare the diversity in spending priorities among countries. We also ask to what extent we can observe a convergence of welfare policy when comparing the situation of the 1980s with the situation in 2007. The focus is more on outcomes and less on the processes and causes underlying the results. The analysis takes into account expenditures for families, active labour market policies, education systems, old age and passive labour market policies. The reason for starting with the 1980s is not only influenced by data availability, but also by the fact that the 1980s is the period immediately preceding the rise of the social investment perspective in the 1990s (see Chapter Two).