Harmonizing TVET with Basic and Higher Education
TESDA Director General Sec. Joel Villanueva recently announced during a forum with technical-vocational institutions that his agency is now working with the Department of Education and Commission on Higher Education to "harmonize" basic education and tertiary courses with technical-vocational education and training (TVET). (Philippine Information Agency, September 20, 2011) The primary reason for this seems to be to enable graduates or even dropouts of basic education (mainly, high school) and bachelor courses to get employable skills (provided by TVET) even if they move out of the system before they finish schooling. In this arrangement, TVET is inserted in basic and higher education as a sort of parachute that the student can open in case he needs to jettison out his course for one reason or another.
Philippine education cohort estimates indicate that for every 100 pupils who enroll in elementary, only 66 graduate and of this 66, only 58 are able to enroll in high school. Of the 58, 43 finish high school. Meanwhile, of those who graduate in high school, 23 will enter college and out of that, only 14 will be able to graduate. (Philippine TVET System, pp. 3-4; produced by the TESDA)
TVET as an emergency option seems viable due to the short time one needs to finish it and the ready jobs one can find when armed with technical skills. Of course, this assumes that the technical skills inserted in the course is relevant and demanded by the market. This issue of relevance aside, there are hurdles that the three government agencies (DepEd, TESDA and CHED), working together, need to overcome for TVET to be fully integrated--and harmonized--with basic and higher education. These include: transforming TVET training content in forms that gels with basic and higher education teaching content; training the trainers and re-configuring laboratory/workshop facilities, equipment, tools and materials; and overcoming bureaucratic mindsets and cultures.
Transforming Training Content
While all components of the Philippine educational system aim to help students apply theories and concepts in real life, they vastly differ on the depth and span of theories introduced to students, and the way they are applied. Basic education introduces theories in their most basic and rudimentary forms and attempt to connect them to common experiences of mostly teen-age students. Higher education, on the other hand, usually teach theories in more complex forms, depending on the course or "major" of the students. However, no direct application to the course is attempted for most of the peripheral subjects. Thus, for example, students of engineering may be required to take some history subjects but no attempt is usually made to connect the course with those subjects, although some creative professor might take students to an intellectual excursion to, say, the engineering works of Jose Rizal in Dapitan or to the grid system adopted by the Spaniards in designing occupied towns.
These complications are not present in competency-based TVET, and it is this no-frills, drop-them-if-you-won't-use-them approach to theories and practical applications that must somehow be emulated in basic and higher education for the students to still have enough time (and energy) to develop real, employable competencies. All these must be done without sacrificing the real requirements of the educational level (secondary or higher education) at hand. In other words, in transforming the content to accommodate TVET, both basic and higher education will need to become more focused and practical. Doing so seems attractive especially if one aims to produce employable skills among students but could prove to be contradictory to the notion that both basic and higher education should awaken and broaden the mind. The existence of this contradiction is very real, and seems to have been part of the cause of many unsuccessful attempts to wed TVET with higher education in some major universities in the country through ladderized programs.
Training the Trainers; Re-Configuring/Providing the Facilities
There have been attempts and there are on-going programs for high school teachers and college professors to train them to deliver TVET. These programs usually train them in the formulation of competency-based learning materials, in the actual delivery of competency-based training and in the conduct of competency assessments. (New trainers training programs being introduced now by TESDA trains them in the use of multi-media and the Internet in the delivery of training.) Although at the surface these trainers training seem all about content and delivery, deeper analysis indicate that there is also a need to help these teachers and university faculty members think more like training center trainers whose primary concern is to train employable workers, not necessarily more knowledgeable citizens.
Aside from the trainers, there is also a need to re-configure (or more accurately in many cases, provide) the school facilities (consumables, tools and equipment) that directly correspond to the qualifications being developed. This can require significant investment, not only for the direct purchase of the facilities but also for their housing, maintenance and utilization, and also for the creation of reliable partnerships between schools, universities or colleges with private firms. (Obviously, it will not be always efficient for schools to purchase equipment and tools, and the government may not have enough funds to purchase them anyway.)
Bureaucracies and Cultures
The original intent in tri-focalizing the educational system of the Philippines is to provide enough focus on each of its components, that is, basic education, technical-vocational education and training; and higher education. However, one of the unintended consequences of this is the evolution of different (and often conflicting) bureaucracies and cultures among the Department of Education (handling basic education), TESDA (for TVET) and the Commission on Higher Education (or CHED, handling higher education) that can tend to drag down any program that requires them to work together.
Because the insertion, or rather the harmonization, of TVET with basic and higher education requires arrangements that are deep and pervasive, these differences will have to be overcome at least to some degree as well. (Some have proposed to merge again the three government agencies partly to help overcome this, and fast-track programs that require them to fully cooperate with each other.)
The on-going attempt to harmonize TVET with basic and higher education is an important step and would be well the investment although it may take some time and some false starts before the system becomes truly workable.
Philippine education cohort estimates indicate that for every 100 pupils who enroll in elementary, only 66 graduate and of this 66, only 58 are able to enroll in high school. Of the 58, 43 finish high school. Meanwhile, of those who graduate in high school, 23 will enter college and out of that, only 14 will be able to graduate. (Philippine TVET System, pp. 3-4; produced by the TESDA)
TVET as an emergency option seems viable due to the short time one needs to finish it and the ready jobs one can find when armed with technical skills. Of course, this assumes that the technical skills inserted in the course is relevant and demanded by the market. This issue of relevance aside, there are hurdles that the three government agencies (DepEd, TESDA and CHED), working together, need to overcome for TVET to be fully integrated--and harmonized--with basic and higher education. These include: transforming TVET training content in forms that gels with basic and higher education teaching content; training the trainers and re-configuring laboratory/workshop facilities, equipment, tools and materials; and overcoming bureaucratic mindsets and cultures.
Transforming Training Content
While all components of the Philippine educational system aim to help students apply theories and concepts in real life, they vastly differ on the depth and span of theories introduced to students, and the way they are applied. Basic education introduces theories in their most basic and rudimentary forms and attempt to connect them to common experiences of mostly teen-age students. Higher education, on the other hand, usually teach theories in more complex forms, depending on the course or "major" of the students. However, no direct application to the course is attempted for most of the peripheral subjects. Thus, for example, students of engineering may be required to take some history subjects but no attempt is usually made to connect the course with those subjects, although some creative professor might take students to an intellectual excursion to, say, the engineering works of Jose Rizal in Dapitan or to the grid system adopted by the Spaniards in designing occupied towns.
These complications are not present in competency-based TVET, and it is this no-frills, drop-them-if-you-won't-use-them approach to theories and practical applications that must somehow be emulated in basic and higher education for the students to still have enough time (and energy) to develop real, employable competencies. All these must be done without sacrificing the real requirements of the educational level (secondary or higher education) at hand. In other words, in transforming the content to accommodate TVET, both basic and higher education will need to become more focused and practical. Doing so seems attractive especially if one aims to produce employable skills among students but could prove to be contradictory to the notion that both basic and higher education should awaken and broaden the mind. The existence of this contradiction is very real, and seems to have been part of the cause of many unsuccessful attempts to wed TVET with higher education in some major universities in the country through ladderized programs.
Training the Trainers; Re-Configuring/Providing the Facilities
There have been attempts and there are on-going programs for high school teachers and college professors to train them to deliver TVET. These programs usually train them in the formulation of competency-based learning materials, in the actual delivery of competency-based training and in the conduct of competency assessments. (New trainers training programs being introduced now by TESDA trains them in the use of multi-media and the Internet in the delivery of training.) Although at the surface these trainers training seem all about content and delivery, deeper analysis indicate that there is also a need to help these teachers and university faculty members think more like training center trainers whose primary concern is to train employable workers, not necessarily more knowledgeable citizens.
Aside from the trainers, there is also a need to re-configure (or more accurately in many cases, provide) the school facilities (consumables, tools and equipment) that directly correspond to the qualifications being developed. This can require significant investment, not only for the direct purchase of the facilities but also for their housing, maintenance and utilization, and also for the creation of reliable partnerships between schools, universities or colleges with private firms. (Obviously, it will not be always efficient for schools to purchase equipment and tools, and the government may not have enough funds to purchase them anyway.)
Bureaucracies and Cultures
The original intent in tri-focalizing the educational system of the Philippines is to provide enough focus on each of its components, that is, basic education, technical-vocational education and training; and higher education. However, one of the unintended consequences of this is the evolution of different (and often conflicting) bureaucracies and cultures among the Department of Education (handling basic education), TESDA (for TVET) and the Commission on Higher Education (or CHED, handling higher education) that can tend to drag down any program that requires them to work together.
Because the insertion, or rather the harmonization, of TVET with basic and higher education requires arrangements that are deep and pervasive, these differences will have to be overcome at least to some degree as well. (Some have proposed to merge again the three government agencies partly to help overcome this, and fast-track programs that require them to fully cooperate with each other.)
The on-going attempt to harmonize TVET with basic and higher education is an important step and would be well the investment although it may take some time and some false starts before the system becomes truly workable.
Comments
Post a Comment