The Skilling Ecosystem continues to struggle to develop desired competencies for their trainers & trainees the lack of which results in unreasonable failure rates and low placement percentages. The data made public by NSDC recently shows failure rates are more in the manufacturing sector as compared to the service sector job roles.
Stakeholder at all levels are making positive contribution, however we still keep missing the goal by a big margin.
What are the possible reasons?
There is no one specific reason but a host of them cutting across the "Skills Value Chain". Their combined effect keeps us away from the fundamental goal of enhancing Competencies. To discuss a few:
a) Setting up an ITI / Skill development center without linking it to the local and regional labour market survey, leading to a mismatch of demand and supply in the local area. Many times the focus is on choosing job roles with minimum investment disregarding the actual local requirements.
b) Lack of a structured councelling, attitude and aptitude testing techniques during the mobilisation phase. This is more pronounced in the Govt sponsored schemes than in the fee based trainings. This no doubt is a specialist area and costs money. Many technology based solutions are now available in the market which must be tested for suitability and a reasonable cost build within the Govt sponsored scheme so that training centres are mandated to pre- screen the potential trainees before enrolment.
c) Availability of quality trainers continues to be a major challenge. The Skilling sector is still unable to attract the best talent. The reasons for this need to analysed and addressed. As per the data made public by NSDC recently, 68% trainers are in the age bracket of 20 and 34. 39% are undergraduates and 41% are graduates. 70.8% have industry experience upto 5 years, from this 49% have industry experience of only upto 3 years. 79.6% have a teaching / training experience of upto 5 years, from this 63% have teaching/ training experience of only upto 3 years. A quick analysis points to the training system filled with young trainers who lack adequate industry and teaching / training experience and thus are invariably found lacking in domain skills.
d) Uniform understanding of the NSQF. It is interpreted at will and levels to the qualification are force fitted on preconceived levels rather than analysing the right fit. Given its importance in the skills ecosystem, one more focused push is required for dissemination. This should be repeated every two years to sensitise those who join the skills journey.
e) Limited understanding of the competencies listed in the qualifications. The ecosystem tends to ignore the "range statements" mentioned in the qualifications' performance criterion, popularly referred to as PCs. This tendency to ignore needs to be analysed and steps must be taken to rectify this very important aspect.
f) Availability of quality assessors. This issue is almost akin to the trainers. As per the data released by NSDC, 60% assessors are in the age bracket of 20 and 34 years. 33% are undergraduates and 42.6% are graduates. 49.8% have industry experience of upto 5 years, of which 27% have experience of upto 3 years only. Here also the assessment system is filled up with young people who are under qualified and lack adequate industry experience. Logically, the Assessor should have more domain experience than the trainer so that he / she is able to carry out impartial assessment following the cardinal principles of Assessment.
g) Lack of a structured assessment process involving both the formative and summative assessments. Currently, the focus is only on summative assessments, which is not the best method to acertain the competencies. SSCs, Assessment bodies and training centres must collectively find a workable and honest solution.
h) Major bandwidth of the ecosystem is being consumed by Govt sponsored scheme rather than demand driven fee based skill training. It may be worthwhile to consider seperating the social agenda and the industry agenda of skills development. The SSCs could focus only on industry needs and other NGOs in the field could address the social agenda.
i) The Training and Assessment fees approved in the Common Cost norms. The ecosystem now has adequate experience of working within the Common Cost norms. It is time to take holistic feedback, specially with respect to the quantity of raw material which is being used by the training system vs the quantity that is required to develop competencies mentioned in the respective qualifications.
j) Limited industry participation in the training centres. The challenge of industry connect in remotely located centres is genuine. However, for balance, proof of type of industry support for the job roles opted by the training centre must be insisted at the time of allocating enrolment numbers.
A coordinated brain storming is required by all stakeholders to take the skilling ecosystem to the next desired level.
Comments
Post a Comment