Working Education?

Aug 28, 2011 Features / Columnists, Ravi Dev

---

The government is about to open two new technical institutes for which they must be commended. It presents an opportunity to create a more flexible, sustainable, inclusive and creative model of vocational education in the country as, for instance, was suggested by the National Knowledge Commission (NKC) of India. India has not done too badly with their innovations.
We can start right at the top: the Ministry of Education could establish a National Institute of Vocational Education Planning and Development to formulate strategy, advise the government, and undertake research and development in areas pertaining to technology and workforce development.
The Institute could monitor changes in technology and the economy and formulate courses besides suggesting new skills required by industry. It would perform detailed manpower analyses by mapping the demand for skilled and unskilled labour in the coming decades. We should not wait for the potential booms in oil and ethanol to manifest before preparing our people to benefit fully from the new opportunities presented.
The institute should analyse the requirement for trainers and instructors, and devise appropriate courses for them. Other objectives should include analysing data on employment and vocational training, mapping, maintaining and updating in real time, a list of vocations, including those that lead to self-employment and developing measures of performance, as well as internal and external indicators of efficiency of training institutes. It could also perform a detailed cost-benefit analysis and examine where the government should invest in the next ten to fifteen years in order to ensure maximum returns.
The Institute should be set up as a public-private-academia partnership and be adequately represented by the government, industry, academia, labour unions, NGOs and other social/community organisations. It should be autonomous, but should work in close cooperation with the concerned Ministries and agencies.
For instance, in conjunction with the Ministry of Education, steps can be taken to increase the flexibility of vocational education within the mainstream education system by retaining aspects of general education (such as numerical skills) in vocational education to enable students to return to mainstream education at a later stage. Far too many people see vocational training as a step down and typecast tradesmen as “working class” without appreciating that these individuals, after a period on the job can receive further training in their fields or in management and move up the corporate ladder.
Courses in training institutes and polytechnics should have distinct tracks for students of different educational attainments. Entry requirements for certain trades should reflect the requirement of the trade – with relaxed entry requirements where necessary. Students should be permitted multiple-entry and exit options in the vocational education stream. Links should be established between the vocational education stream and school education as well as higher education.    Most importantly we will have to have mechanisms in place to quantify and monitor the delivery of vocational education in the country. The government has engaged in ad hoc training of craftsmen, but it is unclear what impact the training has had on unemployment.
We must insist that there be an immediate increase in resource allocation for vocational education. There is still a residue of the old British bias against vocational training versus, say, foreign languages. Given the demand for skilled manpower in manufacturing and services in the modern world, the government should aim to spend at least ten to fifteen per cent of its total public expenditure on vocational education.
Some options that may be considered for raising additional funds to finance a modernised vocational education scheme include enhancing fees, coupled with student loan schemes as at UG and raising funds through a surcharge on employers – for instance two per cent of salaries of all employees, as in Singapore.
There can be a public-private partnership model to exploit the benefits of private delivery in training and enhance linkages between Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs) and industry to solve the problem of disconnect between skills required by employers and skills imparted to ITI graduates. The old Bookers (now GuySuCo) Training School would be a good starting model to emulate – with additional courses.
In this model, curriculum development can be undertaken by the government, with greater inputs from industry and trade as well as flexibility to allow localisation of content. Certification will be provided by the government. The cost of training will be shared by the trainees, the Government and the employers. Curriculum development should be in line with local needs. Today, the greatest challenge lies in providing training for potential entrants in the unorganised/informal sector – where many jobs are created.
Modules on literacy, communication skills, entrepreneurship and other general skills relevant to workplace requirements must be introduced in all courses. Different tracks within courses for different levels of specialisation should be introduced. Students should be offered incentives such as tools, membership of trade associations, etc. as part of their degree/ diploma. Industry and trade involvement should be enhanced not only at the internship stage, but also at the time of examinations and placements.

---

---