【國外編輯部專欄】印度技職教育的瓶頸與挑戰

No Comment Yet

 

作者/Santosh Mehrotra

編譯/李育嘉

[tabs]
[tab title="中文"]

印度技職教育的瓶頸與挑戰

印度的技職教育須盡快擴張,以因應五六百萬青年勞動力和多變的經濟。然而有53%的印度勞動力若不是文盲,就是只接受過基礎教育。除此之外,只有近10%的人擁有職業相關技能。如果排除掉農業勞動力的話則上升到20%,僅計算工業勞動力的話甚至來到44%。這個百分比的增長看似漂亮,但跟狀況相近的國家對比下來卻相形見拙,還須再加強。

印度的職訓可分成四類,第一類為侷限於職前教育的產業培訓機構,過去7年內增長至12000所,其中有2000所為公立,其餘為私立,大部分的私立機構尚未受到官方承認。第二類是自2010年起由國家技能發展局(National Skill Development Corporation, NSDC)(註1)輔導且大量成長的職訓中心。雖然由政府贊助,這些中心還是以營利性組織為雛型。第三,高中11和12年級設有技職相關課程,但僅有5%的適齡學生會申請。自2012年起,印度政府已經頒布新的教育綱要,國中9和10年級也將引進技術課程。最後一類是公司內部的在職訓練,但僅有16%的大公司會提供,中國的企業則有85%。

印度勞動力中大多數人都是靠自己摸索學習技能,擴展職訓課程和建立承認原有技能並結合學習的系統屬當務之急。我帶領政府團隊所制訂的國家技能認證綱要(The National Skills Qualification Framework)便是職訓課程發展的依歸。

相較他國,印度勞工的生產力相對低。如果印度想成為全球生產大國之一,勢必得提高生產力。政府、業界、私立職訓中心三方應相互配合,創造出一個重視生產和技術的環境。

要增加人口紅利(註2),就要先了解印度現在面臨的技術斷層。過去十年經濟起飛,非農業的職缺和勞動力等比成長,但勞動力素質才是重點。如果技術密集的產業找不到能勝任的勞動力,製造商會逐漸轉向資本密集,如此一來,印度經濟成長的模式便會受限於印度本身的優勢,也就是勞動力的增長。

印度的學徒制度僅有大公司提供,意謂著全國四億八千五百萬的勞工裡,只有不到三十萬名的正式學徒,其餘皆為非正式學徒,常常被上司剝削。

業界唯有投入更多的資源和心力在職業教育和訓練,才能改善現有的不足。不論企業規模大小,應設法提供完善的內部訓練和改善人資政策,將雇用專業人員列為重點項目,並建立獎勵制度。除此之外,推薦合適人選任職於職校和教育機構,提高具實務經驗的老師的比例。


註1:NSDC是一家公私合營企業(政府持股49%、私人持股51%),執行全國性教育訓練計畫,目標是在未來10年內培育5億名具備技能素質的人力投入21項產業。該21項產業分別為汽車及零組件業、電子業、紡織業、皮革業、生化業、珠寶業、營建業、食品加工業、手工業、建材業、IT軟體業、外包業、觀光旅遊業、物流業、零售業、房地產業、媒體業、醫療美容業、金融業、教育業及其他等。來源:全球台商網

註2:所謂「人口紅利」,是指一個國家的勞動年齡人口佔總人口比重較大,撫養率比較低,為經濟發展創造了有利的人口條件,整個國家的經濟呈高儲蓄、高投資和高增長的局面。一國人口生育率的迅速下降在造成人口老齡化加速的同時,少兒撫養比亦迅速下降,勞動年齡人口比例上升,在老年人口比例達到較高水平之前,將形成一個勞動力資源相對豐富、撫養負擔輕、於經濟發展十分有利的「黃金時期」,人口經濟學家稱之為「人口紅利」。 來源:台灣維基


[作者介紹:Santosh Mehrotra ]

新德里Jawaharlal Nehru大學經濟系教授。著有India’s Skills Challenge: Reforming Vocational Education and Training to Harness the Demographic Dividend

 

參考資料

[/tab]
[tab title="English"]

India’s Skills Challenge: Reforming Vocational Education and Training to Harness the Demographic Dividend

The Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) system in India   needs to expand very rapidly if it is to serve the interests of the 5-6  million youth joining the labour force every year, and of an economy that is both growing rapidly as well diversifying fast.

However, the majority of India’s workforce either has less than primary education or is illiterate (53%). Moreover, less than 10% of the workforce has acquired vocational skills, although that proportion is higher if we take only the non-agricultural workforce into account (20%), and even higher if we take only the industrial workforce into account (44%). While the increase in percentage seems good it is far below comparable countries and needs to increase.

India’s skill development system has four parts. First, a very narrowly based pre-employment training system of Industrial Training Institutes (grown to about 12,000 in the last 7 years, of which 2,000 are public, the rest private). Second, there are a rapidly growing number of formal vocational training providers  that are being incubated by the National Skill Development Corporation after 2010, based on a for-profit business model, though somewhat subsidised by government. Third, vocational education is offered in senior secondary schools in classes 11-12 (which barely enrol 5% of the relevant age cohort); since 2012 government secondary schools have also begun to offer vocational education in classes 9-10, thanks to the introduction of the National Skills Qualification Framework. Finally, there is the in-firm training provided on recruitment by companies (but only 16% of Indian companies provides such training, and that too only large ones, in contrast to 85% of firms in China).

India must therefore expand TVET to cater to the majority already in the labour force who have informally acquired skills, so that recognition of prior skills and learning becomes systemic. The National Skills Qualification Framework (the base document for which was drafted by a task force of the government led by the author) makes provisions for this monumental task.

The productivity of India’s workforce is lower than many comparator countries. If India is to become a major manufacturing power, productivity in the economy needs to improve significantly. We have to create an ecosystem that promotes and rewards skills and productivity;  Government, industry and private vocational training providers need to work together to realize this objective.

To realize India’s demographic dividend we need to meet India’s skills challenge. Since economic growth took off over the last decade, non-agricultural jobs have been expanding at a rate roughly comparable to the rate at which the labour force is growing. However, it is the quality of jobs that are a matter of concern. If skilled workers don’t become available to industry at a rate comparable to the growth of demand for skills, manufacturers will increasingly resort to more capital-intensive technologies, which will lock India into a pattern of growth that is synch with its comparative advantage – relative abundant labour power.

Only large firms offer apprenticeships, and in a country with a workforce of 485 million, there are under 300,000 formal apprentices. The rest are all informal apprentices, who tend to be exploited by their employers. Changes are certainly needed in the Apprenticeship Act 1961.

While some progress towards reforming TVET in India has been made, a huge and broad ranging agenda for reform lies before the government and industry.

Industry needs to get involved to a much greater extent than ever before in TVET. Both large industries, many of which are engaged in in-house training, as well as small and medium enterprises, will need to find ways to increase in-firm training. Industry must make hiring formally trained skilled personnel an integral part of its human resource policy and include processes and practice to reward skills. Industry will also need to offer its human resources to vocational secondary schools, industrial training institutes and private vocational training providers, so that the number of instructors with practical experience increases by a very large number.

[ Author: Santosh Mehrotra ]

He is Professor of Economics, Centre for Labour and Informal Sector Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi. Previously, he was Director-General at the National Institute of Labour Economics Research and Development (NILERD, earlier called Institute of Applied Manpower Research), Planning Commission of India.

[/tab]
[/tabs]

 

圖片來源:flickr@GlobalPartnership for Education

原文刊登於《NORRAG NEWSBite》,經作者Santosh Mehrotra授權編譯,未經許可不得轉載

 

國外編輯部專欄

Author

國外編輯部專欄

國外編輯部專欄,帶給您最新全球教育觀。

Up Next

Related Posts

發表迴響

你的電子郵件位址並不會被公開。

*