Phil's Weblog

Everything old is new again

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing time and time again and expecting a different outcome. I don't know who said that but I wish I did ('cos I quote it so often).because it applies to the release of the latest recommendations by Skills Australia to solve the ills of the so-called skills shortage. It seems, to me, that the main area where there is a skills shortage is at that level where the solutions are found, the first skill being reading history.

The Skills Australia reports (Skills for Prosperity) was released yesterday, and it offers only one new solution - government to either partially or fully fund attendance at at (TAFE) VET course. Every other recommendation they make is already part of the national VET system, only nobody seems to know how to ensure that what they're recommending actually gets done.

The bottom line is this: Any so-called skills shortage can be overcome if the VET system is managed properly. I'm not just talking about the basic low level courses that make up the current offerings but also the higher level vocational programs which cover such things as planning, leading, managing, controlling and directing work flows and projects.

For example, in Canberra many people say that there is a massive so-called skills shortage in the building industry. The truth of the matter is that there isn't a skills shortage - just a long waiting list of work that needs to be done. The local government here has released so much land to the developers that their workforce can't keep up with it, so they're screaming "Skills shortage" when in reality they're saying "We want to take advantage of all the development applications now and make all our money by next Thursday but can't because we don't have enough workers". In other words: "We are greedy so do something about it government!"

And what does Skills Australia do about this? They come up with a set of recommendations which basically state that VET in this country should get back to basics and do those things which the system was set up to do in the first place.

For example, train the trainers (properly), let industry lead the agenda, impose quality assurance (NOT control) over the processes; standardise the system across the nation; and so on. Nothing new, just not known.

And there is the real skills shortage.

Skills shortage myth

I read this morning that Industry Skills Councils are calling on the government to do more to solve the 'skills shortage' problems. Er, excuse me! Isn't this the job of the Skills Councils? What do they think the funding is for if it isn't to address the skills needs of industries around the country?

The more I hear and read about the so-called 'skills shortage' the more I come to believe that the only place where there is a shortage is in the functions set up to identify and manage training and education in Australia.

If properly planned, resourced and managed there wouldn't be a skills shortage. For example, governments wouldn't release so much land to developers that they (the developers) run out of time to clear and build houses and apartments - ergo, no skills shortage in builders. But for some governments this is the only way they know of raising revenue so clearly there is a skills shortage at government level as well. Managers would invest in staff training so that there were more people skilled to do the work required to keep organisations (and, yes, the public service) running efficiently.

Personally I blame the effort (or lack of effort) put into creating and supporting the Training and Workplace Assessor training package. It has really dumbed training down in this country. As a result we're imploding because no-one seems to know what to do to solve the problems - the first one being how to manage training in this country so that there isn't a skills shortage. Then again, my experience has been that there was a severe shortage of skills when it came to developing training packages so I shouldn't be surprised.

Previous blogs

Before creating this blog I used to post updates and projects into my web site (www.3gpm.com/drphilrutherford). Of course I don't need to do that now but if you're interested in catching up with what I've been up to over the past few years follow this URL and it will take you directly to the 'What's New?' page on my web - http://www.3gpm.com/drphilrutherford/id17.html

While you're there you might like to have a look around the site at my background and (shudder shudder) thoughts and opinions. :D

 

RPL/RCC

Given that RPL (Recognition of Prior Learning) and RCC (Recognition of Current Competence) are basically the same thing, can anyone tell me why some organisations (eg, Defence) use the term 'RPL/RCC' when talking about assessing evidence drawn from sources other than direct observation?

 

I was reminded last night why I don't believe that artificial intelligence will ever replace humans. My reasons can be summed up in one word - serendipity.

I believe that no matter how hard they try scientists will never create a computer or robot (which is basically a machine controlled by a computer) which will replace the capacity for the human mind to tolerate ambiguity and deal with serendipity. Computers may be big enough to computer every single chess move that can be made but they will never, in my opinion, be big enough to compute every single thing that will happen in a person's day - or week, or month, or lifetime.

Time will tell I guess.

The future of training

I am concerned about the future of my profession. In some countries a trainer, or teacher, is viewed as one of the the most important people in an organisation, but in Australia they are still relegated to the backwaters of the HR branch.

The thing is, I don't blame anyone for this except trainers themselves - and this includes me. You see for nearly 20 years now trainers have had the chance to create a place for themselves within public and private organisations but have failed to take the many opportunities they've had.

For example, when the Workplace Trainers and Assessors Competency Standards Board (CSB) was developing the standards for trainers and assessors they received very little input from the training profession itself. Their board (on which I was the National Training Board representative) had only one fully trained assessor and workplace trainer on it (me), the remainder being union representatives, TAFE educators, academics and theoretitions. On top of this, the opportunites that the profession had to comment on drafts of work the CSB produced went begging, so the figures were fudged to show that the CSB had a higher degree of support to their work than should otherwise have been.

And this continues to this day. Thousands of people have been trained as trainers and assessors but much of what they require in their jobs has been learned, on the job, and not gained as a result of the courses they've attended. Most are good at their jobs, not because of what they've been taught but despite it - and those who are not achieving what they strive so hard to achieve can only blame their training because it is not aimed at these objectives.

In my opinion it is time this changed. The Australian Institute of Training and Development (the peak body for trainers in Australia) has got to take a much stronger stand on how trainers and those involved in workplace learning and development are treated by the decision makers and professional training organisations. They have got to be more involved if the profession is to thrive, and its members should be demanding that they do.