Financing TVET: Policy Options that Promote Synergy through - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Financing TVET: Policy Options that Promote Synergy through Partnerships

By Patrick Bulundo (BA, MPA) Presented at the IVETA World Conference Cape Town 2018

Motivation

“Higher Education institutions should prompt the dynamics of social development and lead society towards a better future” Goksu & Goksu (2015:23)

Introduction

▪Public Policy & TVET Financing ▪Main Actors in the TEVET –Stakeholder Analysis

• Government
• Industry & Private Sector
• Learners & Parents

Introduction Cont’d

▪ Funding Options & Partnerships ▪ Policies To Support Funding ▪ Conclusion

Public Policy & TVET Financing

▪ What is the Connection between Public Policy & TVET Financing? ▪ The Political Systems & Philosophy defines Higher Education Financing ▪ Political Power & Influence in the Policy discourse ▪ How is Policy achieved -Public Policy is achieved through Collaborative

efforts using the concept of Public Value.

▪ Policy Formulation + Implementation = Public Value

Public Policy & TVET Financing

▪ Public Value is concerned with Social Outcomes or Utility ▪ Social outcomes accrue to Individuals & Society ▪ Public value concept justifies public investment in education & the Role of

Government

▪ Intrinsic value of education & Utilitarian responsibility ▪ Public Policy design is influenced by the above

Policy & Financing Cont’d

▪ Why is funding linked to Policy -Lack of sufficient funds cited for policy failures:

Need for funding options to drive policy

▪ There is no perfect single model for funding TVET ▪ Many combinations exist ▪ Public + Private + Leaners ▪ Private + Learners ▪ Private only ▪ Public + Private

Who are the main actors in TVET Financing?

Government (Public Sector)

▪ Government Considers TVET as being an Important driver of economic growth ▪ TVET is a Public Good ▪ Socio-economic obligation – Supplying skills ▪ SDG # 4 = Education and Training can Bridge the gap between skills and

employability

▪ Lack of skills lead to inequality that breeds social vices

Role of Government Cont’d

▪ Positive externalities of Skills Training: These Accrue even to those who did

not pay for education

▪ Education and training for its intrinsic value ▪ Public Value of skills ▪ Investment in TVET infrastructure is high only Government may afford

Industry and Private Sector

▪ Enterprises reap profits from well Skilled employees

• Increased Efficiency
• Reduced wastage of materials

▪ Benefits of Apprenticeship Training

• Proprietary benefits (brand protection)
• Employee Loyalty to Brand & Technology

▪ Apprenticeship deliver lifelong learning

• Skills that can be used even in the informal sector

Industry & Private Sector Cont’d

▪ Private Sector can own TVET Colleges

• Limited Capacity of Public Sector
• New Public Management – Government divesting their interest in many

sectors (Privatisation)

• Proprietary interest and protection of technology

Learners and Parents

▪ Skills increase learners position on the labour market ▪ Skills reward learners with higher earnings ▪ Skills increase capacity to survive economic and social hardship ▪ Skills increases self esteem ▪ Skills reduce the gender parity gap

Financing Options &Public Private Partnerships

▪ Financing Options Available are:

Unilateral & Costs Sharing mechanism Unilateral

▪ Also known as Arbitrary Consisting of Budgetary or other Appropriations ▪ Driven by input based formulae ▪ Unit Cost of Training multiply by Enrolment = Funding

• The Unit Cost is pre-calculated

Unilateral Funding

▪ Can be used by Industry & Government ▪ Industry : Where the benefits of training are direct eg Propietary benefits ▪ Government: To Protect ‘unpopular’ Courses yet important and to support

equity & Access

▪ Downside ▪ It is Supply Side driven ▪ No built in incentives for efficiency and quality

Output Based Financing

▪ Alternative Model to Unilateral based Financing ▪ Mainly used by training funds where Industry may be a contributing member ▪ Pre-employment training funding ▪ Funding is tied to targets set in the formula

• Formula may involve enrolment, completion rates, equity, cross cutting issues,

placements etc

▪ Promotes quality delivery of training and equity

Output based financing cont’d

▪ Promotes quality assurance ▪ The downside is that it does not absorb budgetary shocks when eg

enrolment is reduced

▪ Does not support courses where enrolment is traditionary low/courses that

are not socially attractive but are of significant value to the country

▪ Policies here should include national priorities to be considered for funding

Cost Sharing Financing Options

▪ Why cost sharing?

• Supplementation of financing on traditional sources
• Spreading the cost of training

▪ Can involve Government, Private Sector and or Learners ▪ Where does Cost Sharing happen?

• Apprenticeship schemes, dual learning schemes, levy grant systems user fees schemes

etc

Cost Sharing in Apprenticeship Schemes

▪ Apprenticeship defines relationships between industry & training providers ▪ Can help define quality in training through CBT ▪ Can also mobiles alternative funding ▪ Levy Grant systems ▪ Output based funding benchmarks – industrial attachment as a funding

• utput

Policies that Support Partnerships

▪ Getting Industry into the loop – Priority No. 1

• How can industry derive synergy from training
• The Profit Motive Vs Training

Industry Profit Trademark Labour Mkt Signals Curriculum Design TVET Schools Learning

• utcomes

work CBT Industry/ TVET Training Systems

Policies that Support Financing Partnerships

▪ Emphasis must be placed on competences and not qualifications ▪ This does not mean elimination of qualifications by simply placing emphasis on life

skills – human centred approaches

▪ Recognition of Prior Learning : Most of which happens in Industry & informal ▪ Employability linked to lifelong learning ▪ TVET & Industry’s role in RPL and CBT ▪ Competences are not only demonstrable through formal exams ▪ Industry is key here to define competences

Governance

▪ New Public Management – Provides an entry point for industry ▪ Transparency & Discipline ▪ Trust & Confidence - industry must have confidence in Govt ▪ Inclusiveness – Who is involved in Governance of TVET ▪ New Strategic Plans/Service Charters ▪ M & E and Reporting

Qualifications Frameworks

▪ What do Qualifications Frameworks have to do with Funding?

• Standards Setting
• Assurance of Learning Outcomes
• Anchorage for Performance Base Funding

▪ Confidence Building in Stakeholders =Assurances ▪ Emphasis on competences and defined pathways with international recognition ▪ Qualifications Frameworks can be used as symbols of Trust ▪ A must in Funding policies – Qualification Frameworks have been quite successful in

stakeholder engagements

Transparency & Policy Predictability

▪ Who is involved in policy design ▪ Bottom up approaches in policy design encourages Industry input ▪ Policy must be known and clear to avoid misrepresentation and opportunistic prey

(The dark side of bureaucratic discretion is that it creates opportunities for wilful misinterpretation of directives, sloth and self aggrandisement, Mintron & Luetjen 2017:173)

▪ New Public Management instruments to measure performance ▪ Performance based contracts ▪ Strategic plans reflects industry expectations as a major stakeholder

Policy Coherence

▪ Fragmented Policy results in implementation Gaps ▪ Policies must go together with implementation strategies ▪ TVET Financing Policy needs to be consistent with;

• Training Standards & Systems (Assessments, Teacher Training, Curriculum design,

quality Assurance, Qualifications Frameworks)

▪ Ability to Train is impacted by ability to Claim funds, Train learners and

deliver life skills

Inclusive Policy

▪ Why are employers still looking at Training levy as another Tax? ▪ Mainstreaming of Industry must be clear and not just about incentive

Conclusion

▪ Development of Sound policies depend on development of

training systems (Chicken and Egg?)

▪ Policy should carry with it all the TVET systems ▪ Stakeholders must be included in bottom up policy design ▪ Sustainability of policies ▪ TVET Outputs should assure sustainability of funding

References

▪

Boahin P, Eggink J & Hofman A (2014) Competence based Tratining in International Perspective: Comparing the Implementation Process Towards the Achievement of Employability, Journal of Curriculum Studies, Vol 46, No.6 pp. 839 -858, Routledge Taylor & Francis

▪

Bhardwaj A, Kavitha N, Gupter E,D & Ibrahim S.B (2015) Teaching and Learning in Workplace: Contemporary Perspectives, Education in Medicine Journal Vol.7, No.3

▪

Coles M, Keevy J, Bateman A, & Keating J (2014) Flying Blind: Policy Rationales for National Qualifications Frameworks and How They Tend to Evolve. International Journal of Continuing Education and Lifelong Learning, Vol7, Issue 1

▪

Deissinger T (2009) The European Qualifications Framework and the European Lifelong Learning Perspective: How European Countries are Preparing To Cope with the new Philosophy of VET, International Journal of Training Research, Vol 7 No. 1 pp 1-18, University of Konstanz

• Hilal R (2012) Vocational Education and Training for Women and Youth in Palestine: Poverty Reduction and Gender Equality under
• Occupation. International Journal of Educational Development Vol.32 pp 686-695, Elsevier
• Jaeger M, Buhre T (2000) Financing TVET, Swiss Agency for International Development and Cooperation, Information Package No.2

▪

ILO (2010) Global Dialogue Forum on Vocational Educations and Training, Geneva

▪

Khan M A (2012) Public-Private Partnership for Skills Development, Economic Review, Vol43, Issue 9/10 pp. 14-15, Business Source Preview

References Cont’d

▪

Knoeppel R, Pitts D. A, Lindel J.C (2013) Taxation and Education: Using Educational Research to Inform Coherent Policy for The Public Good, Journal of research in Education pp 94-120, ERIC

▪

Lung M, Moldovan I, Alexandra N.L (2012) Financing Higher Education in Europe: Issues and Challenges, Procedia Social & Behavioural Science, Vol 51 pp.938-942, Elsevier

▪

Maclean R & lai A (2011) The Furture of Technical and Vocational Education and Training: Global Challenges and Possibilities, International Journal of Educational Resaerch, Vol 9, Issue 1&2, pp 2-15, eContent management Pty.

▪

May J. P, Sapotichne J, & Workman S (2016) Policy Coherence and Policy Domains, Policy Studies Journal Vol. 34, No.3pp. 381-403 Blackwell Publishing Inc., Oxford

▪

Mintrom M & Luetjens J (2017) Creating Value: Tightening Connections Between Policy Design and Public Management, Policy Studies Journal, Vol45, No.1 Wiley Periodicals Inc.

▪

McGrath S (2012) Vocational Education and Training for Development: A Policy in Need of a Theory, International Journal of Educational Development, Vol 32 pp.623-631, Elsevier

References Cont’d

▪

Mulder R.H, Messmann G & König C (2015) Vocational Education and Training: restructuring the Relationship between School and Work, European Journal of Education, Vol 50 No.4 pp 497-539, John Wiley & Sons

▪

Sutton R (1999), The Policy Process: An Overview, Overseas Development Institute, London

▪

Sanyal B.C & Johnstone D.B (2011) International Trends in the Public and Private Financing of Higher Education, Prospects, Vol. 41 pp 157 -175, UNESCO/ Springer

▪

Teichler U (2018) Recent Changes of Financing Higher Education in Germany and their intended and unintended consequences, International Journal of Educational Development, Vol 58, pp 17-46, Elsevier

▪

Tilea D.M, Bleotu V, (2014) Modern Trends in Higher Education Funding, Procedia- Social and Behavioural Sciences, Vol 116 pp. 2226-2230, Elsevier

▪

United Nations (2015) Global Compact, New York

▪

UNESCO (2017) Diversifying the Funding Sources for TVET, Bonn

References Cont’d

▪ Valisova D (2009) Theoretical Aspects of Financing Higher Education,

Journal fo Young Economists

▪ Walther R & Uhder C (2014) The Financing of Vocational Training in Africa:

Roles and Specifics of Vocational training Funds, AFD

▪ Ziderman A (2016) Funding Mechanisms for Financing Vocational Training:

An Analytical Framework, IZA, Bonn

▪ Ziderman A.(2002) Financing Vocational Training to Meet Policy Objectives:

Sub Suharan Africa, The World Bank