Letting TVET Institutions Police Their Own Ranks
Technical Education and Skills Development (TESDA) Director-General Sec. Joel Villanueva recently encouraged private institutions to help improve the quality of TVET education in the Philippines by helping police their own ranks to ensure that only qualified institutions which could help in the development of technical education and skills development are in the playing field. (Philippine Information Agency, September 20, 2011)
This is a bold statement and is an indication of a bold--and needed--direction for technical education and skills development of the country.
Actually, the development of self-regulating TVET bodies, including that of TVET institutions, has been one of the goals TESDA has been aiming for for sometime now but couldn't pursue fully due to structural hurdles it still need to overcome. Its charter, Republic Act 7796, seems to assume a strong presence of association of technical-vocational institutions when it provides that the TESDA Board--the highest governing body of the TVET sector--include two representatives from national association of technical-vocational institutions. Also, the charter seem to assume that these associations operate distinct and independent from any influence from TESDA or any of its created bodies.
For TVET institutions to be able to police themselves though, the following concerns may need to be addressed: nature of submission to the rules of TVET associations; commonly agreed upon standards for what is acceptable and not acceptable along TVET provision; transformation of compliance and process audits into peer reviews; and establishment of mechanisms for administering corrective actions to deficiencies of TVET institutions.
Nature of Submission to Association Rules
Right now, TESDA essentially produces the rules for TVET institutions to follow. Done in consultation with key industry players and other stakeholders, the main rule books for TVET institutions are the training regulations and the rules of the Unified TVET Program Registration and Accreditation System (UTPRAS). For TVET institutions to police themselves these regulations may need to become part of association rules. With that, the issue of whether schools submit voluntarily or mandatorily to these rules may need to be settled also. Since making submission to these rules voluntary could result in chaos and do-what-you-deem-best atmosphere within the sector, the rules may be thought of as mandatory issuance of the government that is administered by the TVET association. What complications could result from this arrangement will remain to be seen, and the issue of "who will police the police" may also be raised--and settled. (This could also result to eventually TESDA policing, not individual institutions but the TVET associations instead.)
Agreed Upon Standards
The training regulations and various UTPRAS-related issuances of TESDA, as noted, were produced using inputs from the industry and representatives of TVET institutions. However, these rules were not necessarily a product of consensus among TVET institutions. If TVET institutions shall police their own ranks, these standards will also have to be agreed upon by TVET institutions. Whether this shall be done through majority vote or complete consensus may have to be addressed, and this agreement shall need to assume that the standards they are agreeing to as associations are dictated by the employers/firms and they do not have much liberty to change them even if they are not comfortable with them. And along the way, some schools may need to be educated on the fact that their clients here the employers, and not the trainees (at least not at this point). When this is fully realized, the need for firms to sponsor training for potential employees or workers (perhaps as part of their corporate social responsibility though it has to be pointed out that this arrangement has actually direct bearing to their business operations) may also need to be addressed.
From Independent Audit to Peer Review
Today, TESDA conducts compliance and process audits to see to it that TESDA personnel and schools are complying with its UTPRAS regulations and so ensure that a common standard is being followed along administrative documents, trainer qualifications, school facilities and support facilities and the like. For schools to regulate themselves, this arrangement has to be transformed into a peer review where schools audit each other. The worst penalty may also have to be changed from recommendation to close the course to perhaps only suspend the course offering pending compliance with the agreed upon standard. The issues of who will compose the audit teams, how they will conduct the audits and when and how frequent and what schools will be audited may also need to be looked into. TESDA could remain to practice oversight on the audit process but it may only need to conform to or affirm the recommendations instead of approving them.
Corrective Actions
Finally, for TVET provider associations to regulate themselves, the issue of how violations or deficiencies will be dealt with has to be settled. Somehow, TESDA may have to maintain its function of monitoring compliance to commitments to correct deficiencies as identified during the audit, perhaps in coordination with the concerned audit teams.
Mechanisms to avoid the manipulation of the system for the benefit of only some institutions have to be installed, and this are the areas where TESDA may have to maintain an independent and authoritative presence.
Self-regulating TVET institutions that watch each other for the common good is a much-needed feature of the TVET sector in the Philippines. Complex and many issues will need to be addressed along the way but the effort is surely worth it.
This is a bold statement and is an indication of a bold--and needed--direction for technical education and skills development of the country.
Actually, the development of self-regulating TVET bodies, including that of TVET institutions, has been one of the goals TESDA has been aiming for for sometime now but couldn't pursue fully due to structural hurdles it still need to overcome. Its charter, Republic Act 7796, seems to assume a strong presence of association of technical-vocational institutions when it provides that the TESDA Board--the highest governing body of the TVET sector--include two representatives from national association of technical-vocational institutions. Also, the charter seem to assume that these associations operate distinct and independent from any influence from TESDA or any of its created bodies.
For TVET institutions to be able to police themselves though, the following concerns may need to be addressed: nature of submission to the rules of TVET associations; commonly agreed upon standards for what is acceptable and not acceptable along TVET provision; transformation of compliance and process audits into peer reviews; and establishment of mechanisms for administering corrective actions to deficiencies of TVET institutions.
Nature of Submission to Association Rules
Right now, TESDA essentially produces the rules for TVET institutions to follow. Done in consultation with key industry players and other stakeholders, the main rule books for TVET institutions are the training regulations and the rules of the Unified TVET Program Registration and Accreditation System (UTPRAS). For TVET institutions to police themselves these regulations may need to become part of association rules. With that, the issue of whether schools submit voluntarily or mandatorily to these rules may need to be settled also. Since making submission to these rules voluntary could result in chaos and do-what-you-deem-best atmosphere within the sector, the rules may be thought of as mandatory issuance of the government that is administered by the TVET association. What complications could result from this arrangement will remain to be seen, and the issue of "who will police the police" may also be raised--and settled. (This could also result to eventually TESDA policing, not individual institutions but the TVET associations instead.)
Agreed Upon Standards
The training regulations and various UTPRAS-related issuances of TESDA, as noted, were produced using inputs from the industry and representatives of TVET institutions. However, these rules were not necessarily a product of consensus among TVET institutions. If TVET institutions shall police their own ranks, these standards will also have to be agreed upon by TVET institutions. Whether this shall be done through majority vote or complete consensus may have to be addressed, and this agreement shall need to assume that the standards they are agreeing to as associations are dictated by the employers/firms and they do not have much liberty to change them even if they are not comfortable with them. And along the way, some schools may need to be educated on the fact that their clients here the employers, and not the trainees (at least not at this point). When this is fully realized, the need for firms to sponsor training for potential employees or workers (perhaps as part of their corporate social responsibility though it has to be pointed out that this arrangement has actually direct bearing to their business operations) may also need to be addressed.
From Independent Audit to Peer Review
Today, TESDA conducts compliance and process audits to see to it that TESDA personnel and schools are complying with its UTPRAS regulations and so ensure that a common standard is being followed along administrative documents, trainer qualifications, school facilities and support facilities and the like. For schools to regulate themselves, this arrangement has to be transformed into a peer review where schools audit each other. The worst penalty may also have to be changed from recommendation to close the course to perhaps only suspend the course offering pending compliance with the agreed upon standard. The issues of who will compose the audit teams, how they will conduct the audits and when and how frequent and what schools will be audited may also need to be looked into. TESDA could remain to practice oversight on the audit process but it may only need to conform to or affirm the recommendations instead of approving them.
Corrective Actions
Finally, for TVET provider associations to regulate themselves, the issue of how violations or deficiencies will be dealt with has to be settled. Somehow, TESDA may have to maintain its function of monitoring compliance to commitments to correct deficiencies as identified during the audit, perhaps in coordination with the concerned audit teams.
Mechanisms to avoid the manipulation of the system for the benefit of only some institutions have to be installed, and this are the areas where TESDA may have to maintain an independent and authoritative presence.
Self-regulating TVET institutions that watch each other for the common good is a much-needed feature of the TVET sector in the Philippines. Complex and many issues will need to be addressed along the way but the effort is surely worth it.
Comments
Post a Comment