Over the years the Government of India has done many cosmetic changes to its Skill development programs. SwarnaJayanti Gram Swaraj Yojna (SGSY), National Rural Livelihood Mission,DeenDayal Upadhyaya Grameen Kaushalya Yojna (DDUGKY), Pradhan Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojna (PMKVY) to name a few. In order to deliver the mandates a nodal body was created and named as National Skill Development Corporation. Another body named as National Skill Development Agency (NSDA) was created to monitor the entire gamut of skill development across the country. What has been the outcome of these changes and whom have they really benefited?
Firstly the kind of skill gaps identified by these bodies are far different from the actual gaps that are felt by the industry. It is a very common refrain in the industry that the so-called trained youth from the training institutions do not meet the desired standards and a lot of retraining has to happen to make the youth “employable’. One major reason for this could be the focus on obsolete standards and trades being used to prepare the content. While in Europe notably in Germany excellent occupational standards were available along with the very robust duel track vocational delivery system we just ignored them and created a patchwork solution that neither satisfies the youth nor the industry. I recall some 5-6 years back different experts from various countries from Europe, Australia etc. would religiously come to India during winter when various business associations would have the Global Skills Conclave/ conferences with similar themes. It followed a very familiar pattern of a minister representing the Labour Ministry inaugurating it with few joint secretaries and familiar faces from the industry repeating the ad nauseam same stuff. Soon the experts lost all hope and dropped annual Indian conclaves from their itinerary.
It is a fact that there is a tremendous mismatch between the demand and supply that cuts across regions, sectors and gender. If this is the case with vocational skills the scenario in the higher education space is even more disturbing. The so-called graduates coming out of medicine, engineering or for that matter from any stream are a threat to society as they lack basic knowledge along with zero finishing skills.
Secondly, there appears no conscious effort to limit the output to the industry requirement. Let me give you an example of another sector to highlight the confusion. We all know that all metro cities are experiencing tremendous pressure from automobiles. In Delhi, virtually every middle-class family has at least two vehicles. Yet there is no conscious effort to reduce the number of cars produced. So more cars but no roads is the scenario. The same thing is already happening in the vocational education space.
Finally, the question as to who is actually benefitting from these efforts needs scrutiny. I suspect that the training industry in India is the major beneficiary. While there may be few good institutions it is a fact that there is any fly by night operators with rickety infrastructure, and lowly paid instructors are adding to the rot. Job training programmes in India, therefore, have a risk of failing. Let me illustrate this by quoting from a book by Ariel Ducey titled “Never Good Enough- Health Care Workers and False Promise of Training”.
Ducey tries to trace the $1.3 billion dollars spent on retraining Health Care workers in New York City from 1996- 2002. Tries because it is remarkable to what degree it is impossible to find what, exactly, much of this money was spent on. Nevertheless, she carefully traces the expenditures, most of which were given out as grants to various agencies and organizations. Initially, over 180 million dollars was given to hospitals for retraining their staff to meet the ―new market conditions facing the hospitals. The hospitals largely spent this money on hiring vendors, including universities, consultants, curriculum specialists, trainers and various educational 282 consulting firms to provide training using a ―multi-skilled approach. The idea was that in the new market conditions, hospital employees needed to accomplish a variety of job assignments. For example, nursing assistants were now to become ―patient care technicians which they were trained to become ―multiskilled. They were trained to perform EKGs and draw blood in addition to their other duties – with no increase in wages. In the ―new economic reality this was necessary in order to remain competitive. Subsequent grants continued this type of training. The largest amount of training monies went to ―soft skill training such as customer service, team building, communications skills and so on. Ducey argues that the purpose behind this training was to adjust workers to cost-cutting measures undertaken by the hospitals. Training that increased the workload of employees and, through a constant barrage of information on the ―new economy and the subsequent push to focus on such topics as motivation, goal setting and teamwork was really about developing better attitudes. These really aren‘t skills; they are an attempt to inculcate attitudes and values in times of economic crises. They also, as Ducey shows, did not result in better jobs and higher wages for the workers. I only wish that the concerned agencies undertake such an exhaustive audit to find out how is rupee has been spent or wasted. Whether or not the industries got well-trained youth that helped them improve productivity is open to debate but what is sure that many training operators have filled their pockets either by keeping the money in their fixed deposit accounts or diverting it at the cost of the poor trainer.
What is the solution?
One clear conclusion is that the training has to happen at the workplace and NOT in a sterile training room away from the workplace. This can happen only when the industry feels the value of the training.
Secondly, the monitoring mechanism has to be very robust and foolproof.
We must take a hard look at the so-called occupational standards and adopt the very best that is available with appropriate localization. And finally, the government should hand over the management to the industry and experience proves that wherever it has intervened only red-tapism and bureaucracy have increased. In India, IT business increased so dramatically for the simple reason that none in the government could understand what is this all about. Besides they were only interested in blocking the supply of hardware as software was beyond their comprehension. Don’t believe me? Please read http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/tech/ites/25-years-of-reforms-when-narayana-murthy-took-3-years-and-50-trips-to-delhi-to-import-one-computer/articleshow/53308935.cms
