Debating the value of NQFs in developing countries

Conference

The 11th UKFIET biennial conference on Education and Development was held between 13 and 15 September 2011 at the University of Oxford in the UK. Sessions were held in skills development, Education for All, education and multilingualism, education in emergencies, quality, access, governance and sustainability, among other topics.

Re-thinking TVET

In view of my current studies on professional education I mainly attended the session on skills development. The presentations were of good quality and informative, with many case studies and real-life examples. One particular presentation was inspiring, that of Prof. Simon McGrath of the Nottingham University in the UK. He called for new ways of thinking about and practising TVET and challenged current thinking and practices that do not seem to have worked in raising the development of individuals. He specifically called for a humanistic motivation for TVET and proposed that individual well-being and personal flourishing should be the main goals of skills development not economic growth. To date, TVET has mainly been motivated on the assumptions that:

• training leads to productivity and productivity leads to economic growth;
• skills lead to employability which, in turn, leads to jobs.

Prof. McGrath proposed that dialogue should come within the field of skills development, weighing the humanistic approach against the materialistic approach. I'm personally a proponent of the materialistic approach, combined with elements of the humanistic approach, where developing countries are concerned. This is because I see survival (i.e. the ability to meet one's basic needs to literally stay alive) as the primary need for this part of the world. And if this is accompanied by the possibility for fulfilment through participation in 'fun' activities or hobbies, then all the better. Abraham Maslow's theory on the hierarchy of human needs is relevant here.

All in all, I found the presentation of Prof. McGrath thought-provoking and constructive in the sense that it was calling for generation of alternatives, and this can only improve our efforts and results in skills development.

Debating the value of NQFs

On the other hand, the discussion on "the value of NQFs for developing countries" which carried on throughout the sessions was sometimes discouraging. Some argued that NQFs/unit standards/the competence based approach do not work and that policies on these have totally failed to achieve their intended objectives. From the examples given I could see and agree with the presenters that some aspects of this have failed. But what I missed in the concluding statements is nuance. Surely total failure could not have been achieved in so many cases? And surely there must be some good outcomes as well, even if these are few? And even if total failure has been achieved, what are the proposed alternatives? These were fortunately offered in the presentations of Powell, Pieck, Bertoloto, Kersh and Akoojee among others.

Objective systems versus old boy networks

Furthermore, the support of "reputation and networks" instead of NQF also really alarmed me. The argument here was that many people (in developing countries) get a job on the basis of who they know or where they studied. And if this is the case, why would we need NQFs or a paper qualification showing exactly which competences one has? This is a view which I completely disagree with. Two wrongs don't make a right! The fact that people often get jobs through their informal networks doesn’t mean that we should drop all efforts to maintain a system that allows objectivity and transparency in qualifications recognition.

Getting jobs because of one’s networks is a global reality and we cannot ignore this fact. However, it would be a wrong decision for us as specialists in skills development to resign ourselves to this and accept that as the standard. That would not be a desirable situation. Objectivity and transparency come first and should be the foundation! Choosing for the informal ways of securing a job, while paper qualifications are ignored, feeds corruption, undermines integrity within human resource management, and is not beneficial to the effectiveness of the labour market. Preferably the right people must work in the right jobs.

Obtaining a job through one's informal networks is alright, provided it is combined with an assessment of one's current competences or potential for developing the required competences on-the-job. Otherwise, the employers will undermine their own effectiveness! In my view, systems, tools and policies that promote objectivity in assessing a candidate's suitability for a particular job remain valid and foremost, even when practice in reality is different.

As a colleague points out, old boy networks also exist in the developed world, yet banishing objective systems for accrediting one’s competencies because these networks work effectively, is also unthinkable in this part of the world!

Continued dialogue

Full discussion on these issues during the conference proved difficult due to lack of time to build on the dialogue. It would be good if the dialogue can continue in the skills development world, by picking up on the proposal of Prof. McGrath to start constructively (but still critically) think of alternatives for whatever is not working optimally in the field of skills development. That, to me, is the best way forward.