Coordination and Dialogue for Skills 23 July 2021
Briefing document for Dialogue 1 Prof Stephanie Allais
Introduction This briefing document provides an overview of the problem of coordination and dialogue in SA, in relation to our vocational skills system. The focus of this paper and of the first dialogue explores how to enhance the levels of coordination within the system and ensure meaningful dialogues. This is based on the assumption that enhancing the quality of discussions and engagements across social partners, and their ability to collectively determine priorities, will enhance the implementation of mid-level skills training that enables youth to transition into the labour market and for existing employees to access skills development that supports transformation and inclusive growth. This focus refers to all education and training focused on preparation for work, including formal public colleges and private providers, or university of technologybased provision, formal workplace-based provision, and informal on-the-job training. In terms of formal
qualifications, mid-level skills refer roughly to qualifications above junior secondary education and below degree level. The reason for this focus is that South Africa has a plethora of structures and forums to coordinate the supply and demand of skills, at national, sectoral, and other levels. Yet, despite this multiplicity of structures – or perhaps in part because of the number of them – vocational (occupational) education and training is still conceptualised outside of discussions around the labour market. In addition, there has been considerable research undertaken into demand and supply, through the LMIP, SETAs directly as well as research undertaken with the support of development partners and under the auspices of the Human Resource Development Council (HRDC) and the National Skills Authority (NSA). This research has considered ways to address supply and demand and has since informed the development of the PSET plan as well as the skills strategy developed in response to COVID-19. The challenges of translating
Funded by the European Union
1
this work in ways that support implementation appears to be in part because of a failure to jointly agree on priorities and ways to leverage resources to support these priorities whilst retaining a focus on institutional development. Reviews of these structures (including those undertaken in several Ministerial reviews) suggest that in many cases these multiple structures and processes have poorly conceived relationships, and unclear mandates and accountability lines. We do not have a focused mechanism to build consensus on aspects of social policy that affect the production of skills. Strategies and plans for education and training tend to operate largely in isolation from industrialization strategy.
Locating this challenge within the broader context of the skills development system The PSET Plan states that, “by 2030, the PSET system should manifest the vision of the White Paper for a socially just, responsive and coordinated system which provides access to and supports the successful completion of a diversity of quality learning opportunities with vastly improved links to the world of work”. It presents the outcomes that will indicate the achievement of these goals, including, inter alia: streamlined roles and responsibilities; improved, rationalised and integrated planning and articulation; increased enrollments and participation rates; restructured funding processes; differentiated institutions; more diverse, responsive and relevant programmes; enhanced cooperation between education and training institutions and employers; improved quality of teaching, learning, governance, staff, quality assurance and infrastructure; improved research productivity and innovation; and increased throughput, completion and exit outcomes. However in outlining these imperatives the solutions focus on institutions and mechanisms on the supply side without addressing the many complex reasons why education does not produce skills in line with the needs of the labour market. For this reason, in finding solutions, this dialogue focuses on how to bring in individuals from across the eco-system (outlined below) and considers ways to construct these engagements to support the co-creation of priority interventions within the broader frameworks that are already in place.
Why we need coordination? Effective skills development systems rely on, in various ways, extensive engagement between those conducting training and those hiring, managing, or working with the skilled workers. The literature on countries which have developed skills formation systems which successfully contribute mid-level technical skills (such as Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, Scandinavian countries, and Switzerland), describes long historical processes which have involved employers centrally, as well as other key role players such as labour unions and other national bodies of particular importance in specific contexts (Busemeyer & Trampusch, 2012). An alternative, more centralized approach can be seen in the late industrializing countries, and specifically the ‘East Asian Tigers’, which successfully developed skill formation systems to support their economic strategies (Ashton et al., 2002). These two groups, the former with social coordination and partnerships embedded in various degrees of wealth redistribution and labour market regulation, and the latter with directed interventions in economies together with highly centralized government actions directing education systems, seem to be among the more successful countries internationally in producing the skills required for economic development and in creating positive relationships between skills formation and economic development. The importance of these structures adapting to particular imperatives is alluded to by Andre Kraak (2013, p. 249), when discussing lessons about the coordination of skills supply in Finland, Ireland, and Malaysia. Kraak discusses the idea of task teams as important structures when ‘government enters a new policy area or when there is a great deal of confusion about the root causes and solutions to a problem’. The idea is that such structures can have remits that cross departmental boundaries and include members from outside government, enabling them to operate outside of formal structures and constraints. This is seen as crucial to preventing blockages in the supply of skills where a single department is unable to be sufficiently dynamic. We cannot import specifics from other countries. But if we want the production of mid-level skills required by our economy and the economy that we are attempting to build through the Covid Economic Reconstruction and Recovery Plan and the National Development Plan, we have to develop better, more focused, more engaged, more meaningful mechanisms, processes, and approaches for coordination, cooperation, and dialogue. COORDINATION AND DIALOGUE FOR SKILLS
2
Figure 1: The broader skills development system
Employer Ass & Trade Unions
DSI, NRF, TIA, Science Councils
DHET Enrollment Planning/PQM, funding, institutional support, regulatory role (quals & curricula)
HRDC
PROVISION
NSA NSFAS
DTIC Industrial Strategy
SETAS
Skills Development Providers
NSF
DOL (Industrial Relations)
Public & Private WORKPLACES
Other Colleges
Other key govt depts
Comm Coll.
Township & Village Economy
Professional Bodies
Public HEIs
TVET Colleges
CHE
NAMB, Indlela & QCTO
SAQA
Umalusi
Mapping the broader skills development eco-system The first step is to analyze the broader system in which skills are located and developed. Figure 1 below provides some indication of the institutions in this system—in which skills development happens, as well as for which skill development happens in South Africa. It shows that skills development should be seen in terms of the different institutions that offer education and training, the institutions that regulate and coordinate, and the institutions where employment happens. This is part of recognizing the role of the workplace both in terms of its role in provision (both structured training and workplace experience) as well as in terms of demand. This is given expression in the masterplan processes driven by the DTIC and other partners within and outside of government. Further, and in particular with respect to stimulating local economies is the focus on the skills required for the township and village economy. The diagram also points to other key players in the environment (regulatory and funding) as well as other partners that support coordination within an industry, in sectors as well as nationally. The institutional terrain is complex and there is a multiplicity of players. There are various locations where policies are made, targets are set, and so on. There are various sets of ‘rules and tools’ that players are often obliged to use—such as the Organizing
3
Private Colleges
Private HEIs
SAIVCET
DBE Schools Three Streams
Framework for Occupations, and the National Qualifications Framework, as well as the requirements of quality assurance bodies—that are challenging at times. What we lack is an overarching sense, a higher-level picture of what we want the system to deliver and to do and in particular to prioritise. This requires a shared higher-level sense of key challenges and the capacity for social partners to problem solve. We also need some framework to collectively determine a few (three, four, or five) overarching compass points that we should steer by when attempting to build our system in the short term, dealing with urgent priorities, at the same time as laying the basis for a stronger system in the longer term. What are the roles that different social partners can play and how can we find new ways of exploring this?
Where we have coordination According to Unesco, the systems and policies which have been put in place for human resource development in South Africa are good. The 2012 Education For All Report argues that among fortysix countries examined, ‘South Africa has one of the most comprehensive sets of policies and programmes addressing youth skills development. At least eight policies present priorities for skills development’ (UNESCO, 2012, p. 208).
At a national level, some of the key structures that are intended to coordinate and ensure dialogue about skills supply and demand are the Human Resource Development Council, National Skills Authority, and NEDLAC. The Human Resource Development (HRD) Council was created in 2010 as a key structure to link different areas of government work and as well as to link government work with different spheres of the economy. Led by the Deputy-President, the Council is supposed to guide and shape the human resource development agenda; provide a platform for dialogue and consensus building; identify skills blockages; and recommend solutions (Republic of South Africa, 2010, p. 10). Crucial here is the idea of ensuring that policies across government are aligned with each other. However, there are no real mechanisms to create integration or to hold the different parts of that system to account. Further, current interventions in the economy to create a requirement for skills, weak as they are, are generally not the focus of discussion by the Council, neither does it focus on industrial relations, which have a large impact on skill formation systems. The National Skills Authority has responsibility for: Reviewing the skills development legislative framework to support the integration of education and training and determine the national priorities of government (inclusive of the NSF framework). It also has the responsibility for the development of the capacity of skills development stakeholders and system. The NSA is a stakeholder body with representatives from different social partners. There has been considerable debate over the past years as to how the role of the NSA relates to the work of the HRDC as both are stakeholder structures. Whilst the HRDC has a broader mandate this encompasses the work of the NSA. This reinforces the confusion of mandates and, despite these structures, there continue to be challenges in ensuring that partners feel heard in these structures and carry a shared sense of purpose. NEDLAC also includes the key partners. It primarily has responsibility for facilitating negotiations around legislation. However, in the context of the Jobs Summit, and more recently discussions around the Economic Reconstruction and Recovery Plan (ERRP) it also focuses on the role of skills in enabling jobs and economic recovery. This formal process is of course vital but can be adversarial rather than emphasising collective problem solving. At a sectoral level, all of the Sectoral Education and Training Authorities have representation
from employers, unions, and government on their governing boards. This is intended to ensure that their systems and interventions meet the skill formation needs of their sectors. However, at a board level this representivity has led to vested interests dominating SETA agendas, as well as corruption at times, while the nature of the systems and tools used to collect employer data (reliance on workplace skills plans and annual training reports filled in by employers and then aggregated across sectors) has led to weak sectoral analysis of skills needs. There are a number of more focused processes where there is tripartite involvement and dialogue and communication happens. These include amongst others the college councils there is an attempt to involve business and then there is SAQA, the quality councils and the QCTO qualification process. In terms of this process, employer representatives are involved in curriculum, assessment, and overall design of qualification as well as qualification identification. These processes should, in theory, mean that the content of training is exactly what employers want—and yet, in many instances, the desired fit between education and work does not seem to be built through these processes. In the Masterplan process, coordinated by DTIC often in support of the relevant government department, the key players determine how best to drive industrial development in key industries and consider the key enabling factors in this regard. This includes incentives as well as typically, includes a skills development component. The skills component, however, is often an add on and not integrated into the strategy or seen as integral to the decisions that are made with respect to industrial transformation. Despite—or because of—the many places where engagement is institutionalized, employers argue that the skills which they need are not being created, and that the training that they do is inadequately recognized and supported by the system, while education institutions struggle to find work experience opportunities for their learners, and the state struggles with the planning of skills development. Further, despite these structures— which have as their stated purpose the involvement of stakeholders in decision-making—there is little agreement on how funding can best be used to leverage changes in ways that support the objectives for skills development. There have been some limited successes in coordinating skills development in South Africa; in specific, the JIPSA (Joint Initiative on Priority Skills Acquisition) process, which was initiated to
COORDINATION AND DIALOGUE FOR SKILLS
4
address specific blockages in some of the ‘pipelines’ of the systems to produce appropriately skilled people in identified areas. JIPSA was widely seen as very successful at bringing together high-level stakeholders to focus on ‘unblocking’ specific skills development ‘pipelines’, which is why individuals involved referred to it as ‘plumbing’. A few of these successes have continued into the present structure. These demonstrate that targeted and focused highlevel coordination across stakeholders can make a difference in the production of skills. Designed as a short-term intervention, it functioned for a period of four years, from 2006 to 2009. JIPSA was a focused coordinative mechanism, with a set of very specific identified priorities. It had senior leadership: it was located in the presidency, and chaired by the then Deputy President, and its highest structure included representatives from government, business, organized labour, higher education, professional bodies and associations, and specialist agencies. Its work was carried out through a Technical Working Group which was chaired by an individual with considerable political authority, and also included representatives from key government departments, business, and organized labour. JIPSA was generally seen as successful at achieving a few clear ‘short term, decisive interventions’ (Kraak, 2010, p. 75). It was seen as a demonstration that putting senior leadership behind a project, having a limited range of clear and focused priorities, and focusing on bringing different departments and stakeholders together where there were specific problems that affected them, enabled clear progress (The Business Trust, 2010). The fact that stakeholders agreed on plans was seen to contribute to smooth implementation, and in some instances, it enabled additional resources to be leveraged. For example, for the goal of increasing the supply of engineers, businesses allocated additional bursaries, and made workplaces available for both technicians and engineers to get work experience. The Department of Education increased funding for engineers, and gave universities funds to improve their facilities. Similarly with artisans, because it was agreed that this was a national priority, additional funding could be sourced from the National Skills Fund1. Employers formed groups to look at training over and above their own needs. Large employers, especially state-owned enterprises, developed plans to absorb and train more artisans. The Department of Education then had to look at the role of the colleges in producing artisans. A fund set up through a payroll levy; a small percentage of the levy is allocated to this national fund for priority areas. 1
5
JIPSA is seen to have been a success because it brought the right people together, was led by the highest level of government, and created a sense of urgency around jointly solving a few key issues, with peer accountability and joint ownership. The process also shows that South Africa can achieve focused interventions that make improvements in targeted areas of the skills formation system when there is appropriate focus on the task at hand. But in the main JIPSA deliberately avoided bigger systemic and policy issues, and its focus on short-term and ‘catalytic’ interventions arguably made it easier to achieve success. There are also examples emerging where this tight and focused engagement is taking place such that employers and unions, for example, have a collective agenda for supporting workplace transformation through skills development and this is given expression in the Masterplan process. One such example can be found in the Clothing and Textile Industry where DHET has actively played a role in the Masterplan process and social partners appear to be reaching agreement on key approaches including joint projects to support improved productivity.
References Ashton, D., Green, F., Sung, J., & James, D. (2002). The Evolution of Education and Training Strategies in Singapore, Taiwan and S. Korea: A development model of skill formation. Journal of Education and Work, 15(1), 5–30. Busemeyer, M. R., & Trampusch, C. (2012). The Comparative Political Economy of Collective Skill Formation. In M. R. Busemeyer & C. Trampusch (Eds.), The Political Economy of Collective Skill Formation (pp. 3–38). Oxford University Press. Human Resources Development Council. (2012). Mid-Term Report (2010-2012). Office of the Deputy President of South Africa. Kraak, A. (2010). A Critique of South Africa’s National Human Resource Development Strategies. Southern African Review of Education, 16(1), 59–82. Kraak, A. (2013). Cross-sectoral state coordination, skill regimes and economic development: Lessons for South Africa from Finland, Ireland and Malaysia. Transformation, 83, 1–26. Kraak, A., & Press, K. (Eds.). (2008). Human Resource Development Review 2008. Education, employment and skills in South Africa. HSRC Press.
McGrath, S., & Akoojee, S. (2007). Education and skills for development in South Africa: Reflections on the accelerated and shared growth initiative for South Africa. International Journal of Educational Development, 7(4), 421–434. Mohamed, S. (2010). The state of the South African economy. In New South African Review 1 (pp. 39–64). Wits University Press. Mouton, J. (2008). THE JIPSA SECRETARIAT REVIEW. Initial version of report prepared by Feedback Analysis. Republic of South Africa. (2010). Human Resource Development South Africa. Draft strategy for discussion 2010-2013. Republic of South Africa. Segatti, A., & Pons-Vignon, N. (2013). Stuck in stabilisation? South Africa’s post-apartheid macroeconomic policy between ideological conversion and technocratic capture. Review of African Political Economy, 40(138), 537–555. The Business Trust. (2010). Completion Report on the Joint Initiative for Priority Skills Acquisition (JIPSA). UNESCO. (2012). EFA Global Monitoring Report. Youth and Skills: Putting Education to Work. [Education for All]. Unesco.
COORDINATION AND DIALOGUE FOR SKILLS
6
Integrating skills into sectoral planning 25 August 2021
Briefing document for Dialogue 2 Stephanie Allais, REAL, Wits
Introduction Dialogue 2 seeks to explore how different sectors and industries (at a national or local level) are trying to embed skills planning within economic development processes. Why? Ranges of policies, systems, and institutions have been created to improve skills anticipation and planning, to ensure that skills “supply” is meeting “demand” in the economy. To date, few concrete, credible results have emerged to improve the match between vocational education graduates and placements in labour markets. Our research (Allais et al. 2021) emphasises that skills planning is not, and cannot, be linear. There are serious limits to how well we can figure out upfront what skills will be needed in the medium and long term. Rather, education players should be embedded into economic planning processes. For example, where there are industrial planning processes, policymakers from education systems, educational providers, or
labour market intermediaries should be involved in these as well as other processes around building the economy. This can ensure that decisions related to industrial transformation both support and are supported by skills provision. There are also serious problems on the “supply” side in planning educational responses. Partly, this relates to time horizons. The capacity of education systems to provide short-term responses is inherently limited, as educational offerings take time to design and offer. Further, our research (Allais and Marock 2020) shows that constant attention to reforming education and training provision (the so-called supply side) in fact undermines education provision by creating a constantly shifting policy environment. And too often planners try to make interventions in education and training institutions only, and expect skill formation systems to change. So planning that requires shortterm responses needs ongoing and direct relationships between educational providers and employers, as well as institutional capacity in both. Where long-
Funded by the European Union
1
term planning decisions are made, planning for narrow or specific skills works against the interests of both prospective workers and employers, because of changes to the world of work. Further, bodies of knowledge that underpin the ability to perform work, and which are acquired in substantial educational processes, are crucial to perform work with autonomy, but there is no simple relationship between specific tasks in workplaces and such bodies of knowledge. This is why planning for the medium and long term has to be in relation to broad areas of expertise and occupational roles (Allais and Shalem 2018). Skills planning needs to be built into an ongoing process of engagement, in different ways and at different levels of our economic system and our education and training system. Skill formation systems are shaped by, and embedded in, economic, social, and political arrangements and systems. We need to move away from seeing skills as something specified as needed by actors in the economy, in order to be “produced” by actors in the education system. This means that instead of skills being seen as an “add-on” at the end, or as a list of projected skills to be produced in order to support an industrial development strategy, crucial decisions such as those around changing work organisation and changing technology need to incorporate a focus on skills. And this means that providers and employers need to develop better insight into each other’s needs and capacities. This can be developed through working together on the provision and delivery of specific programmes, and by ensuring that formal programmes and on-the-job training complement each other. To understand how this could work in South Africa, we start with the masterplan processes driven by the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (DTIC).
What are the masterplan processes about? Since launching the first Industrial Policy Action Plan in 2007, the DTIC and its predecessor, the DTI, have driven first sectoral plans, and then sector masterplans. Discussions and research around the masterplan process began in and around 2016. The first sector to finalise a masterplan was the automotive sector, which launched the Automotive Masterplan in 2018. This has subsequently been revised and since then a number of sectors have either completed or are in the process of finalising their plans.
The intention of such plans is firstly to help create conducive conditions for industries to grow, and secondly, to assist companies to improve their industrial capacities and sophistication, focusing both on export orientation and reclaiming domestic market space lost to imports. Masterplan processes generally include participation from relevant government departments, employers, unions, and providers. The plans include clear objectives, implementation strategies, and stakeholder commitments. The masterplan approach brings together players to support collaboration in an industry to unlock growth. The idea is to identify constraints to growth and what is needed to support growth, such as ensuring appropriate support institutions or measures. The collective approach to identifying constraints, and measures to resolve the constraints, has contributed to unlocking growth and investment through the masterplans by giving players in the industry confidence in future profitability. The alternative, which has been seen in several industries already, is a downward spiral. The Second Skills Dialogue, on 3 September, will share insights from two different sectors that have been identified within the Economic Reconstruction and Recovery Plan (ERRP) and specifically the Presidential Youth Employment Intervention as priority sectors, as well as an example of different kinds of processes at a sector and local level that seek to embed skills in demand planning. The dialogue aims to understand: Lessons from partnership and working together. (What were the ingredients that made it happen or not? How are partnerships being formed?) How skills fit into conversations around economic planning or growing a sector. How skills can contribute to changing work organisation and introducing new technologies and products/services (from an industry and company perspective). How and what kind of programmes are identified to deliver the kind of skills needed. What kind of approaches the parties are taking around planning.
INTEGRATING SKILLS INTO SECTORAL PLANNING
2
Sector overviews: auto, digital and installation, repair and maintenance (IRM) Automotive sector This was the first sector to finalise a masterplan, and one of the few sectors that has its masterplan at the core of its industrial strategy. Skills development is at the centre of the strategy, in that it identifies skills and skills development as a major enabler for the sector to introduce and localise the key technologies necessary for the growth and sustainability of the sector. The development of this industrial strategy (masterplan) has been driven by the DTIC in partnership with key stakeholders such as the National Association of Automotive Component and Allied Manufacturers (component association), the National Association of Automobile Manufacturers of South Africa (assemblers association) and unions such as the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa. This strategy is considered to be a step up from previous industrial policy strategies such as the Motor Industry Development Programme and the Automotive Production and Development Programme, which were adopted to guide the sector over the past 25 years. The masterplan process seeks to transform the sector through increasing localisation of production to 60% up from just below 40%, and also to increase unit car production to 1% of global supply (projected to be 1.4 million units) by 2025. The transformation is underpinned by programmes aimed at ensuring better demographic representation across employment categories, including artisans, professionals, management, and executives. Further, given the automotive industry’s increasing skills requirements, it is focused on employee education and skills development.
Digital and information and communications technology (ICT) sector This is a broad and diverse industry that cuts across a range of sectors and operates in a dynamic, competitive global economy. There is a range of stakeholders, structures, and institutions involved. Many of them have developed or are in the process of finalising strategies, plans, initiatives, and programmes to support the digital skills development agenda. Further, the Department of Higher Education and Training’s (DHET’s) Covid-19 skills strategy, developed in response to the ERRP, highlights the need to establish workstreams in the digital and ICT sector to ensure that demand-led skilling is implemented and that emerging skills gaps are filled, and this has been given expression in the
3
interdepartmental coordinating committee on digital skills that is being convened by the Presidency with support from the DHET. This coordinating committee aims to bring together relevant initiatives within and beyond government to forge a single national approach to digital skills for the economy, with an emphasis on supporting unemployed youth. It has been designed to focus on implementation in consultation with social partners, to facilitate and unlock greater efficiency in delivery, and to improve the overall effectiveness of government interventions. With wide representation across government departments, and a concerted effort to coordinate the private sector, this represents an opportunity to build skills planning into economic recovery and development plans.
The IRM initiative This is a partnership between key stakeholders across the IRM sector. The focus of IRM enterprises includes manufacturing, plumbing, electrical, general maintenance, domestic appliance repair, auto body repair, cellphone repairs and others. The partnership aims to increase demand for skilled labour in small, medium and micro enterprises (SMMEs)/townshipbased IRM enterprises across the infrastructure development value chain. In turn, the idea is to equip young people with skills that will support this growing demand, in sustainable employment or selfemployment, in the installation, repair and maintenance of infrastructure (both public and private). The IRM initiative recognises that youth unemployment will not be solved through labour absorption in the formal sector alone, and that township youth in particular face significant barriers in accessing and sustaining employment opportunities. Therefore, it is critical to support and develop township enterprises so as to grow economic activity and unlock employment/ self-employment opportunities. In short, this initiative operates at the interface between supply and demand, unlocking the demand for skills in these various industries, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, supporting and enabling public Technical Vocational Education and Training (TVET) colleges to respond to this demand through agile and flexible occupational training. The initiative is also intended to complement the national water and sanitation masterplan process. Again, key stakeholders and role players from across government are involved, including local government, TVET colleges, employer bodies (such as the Institute of Plumbing SA), SMME support organisations (such as the Small Enterprise Development Agency and Gauteng SMME Clearing House), and strategic partners such as the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH.
Against this background, the programme for the Second Skills Dialogue on 3 September has been structured along the lines of three panel discussions that seek to showcase the different ways that supply can be embedded in demand planning. Two of the panel discussions focus on what is happening at a sector level (auto and digital) and the third panel focuses on what is happening in a geographic space (at a local level). We appreciate your ongoing interest and support as we engage around these issues to obtain your insights and contributions, and as we work together to map out a collective process for sustained and systemic engagement to improve the skills system for the benefit of all stakeholders.
References Stephanie Allais, and Carmel Marock. 2020. “Educating for work in the time of Covid-19: Moving beyond simplistic ideas of supply and demand.” Southern African Review of Education 26 (1): 62–79. Stephanie Allais, Volker Schӧöer, Carmel Marock, Victor Kgalema, Nduvho Ramulongo, and Tolika Sibiya. 2021. “Rethinking ‘Supply and Demand’ of Technical and Vocational Education and Training: Insights from a Company Survey in Three Manufacturing Sectors in South Africa.” Journal of Education and Work forthcoming. Stephanie Allais, and Yael Shalem. 2018. Knowledge, Curriculum, and Preparation for Work. Leiden and Boston: Brill Sense.
INTEGRATING SKILLS INTO SECTORAL PLANNING
4
Integrating skills into sectoral planning 15 September 2021
Post-dialogue brief: Dialogue 2 REAL
Coordination of skills: it’s not all bad news
young people from accessing economic opportunities, and that are preventing workers from retaining their jobs and progressing in their jobs.
The first dialogue set the scene for the five-part dialogue series taking place from July to November. We started by highlighting the conundrum that, despite the myriad structures for stakeholder dialogue, we still seem to struggle to communicate with one another in order to agree on priorities. There is also a lack of trust in the education and training environment with regard to skills. So, the first dialogue focused on where parties are engaging and building a partnership – with skills being a key component of this. A union and employer representative in the clothing industry highlighted how they began to build collaboration and a partnership to save the industry. An important part of this conversation was the role of skills and improving productivity. Key to building a partnership was the importance of mutual interest, mutual gains, trust, and understanding one another’s perspective. All of this is crucial for the remaining four dialogues, because we want to collectively solve problems that are preventing
Dialogue 2 picked this up, with three examples of where there is effective coordination taking place. Some key insights include the following: relationships that are ongoing, constant, and evolving, as opposed to the idea of once-off planning; as a starting point for partnerships is an acknowledgement by the key stakeholders that “we are not going to get very far as a sector alone”; there is a move away from working in silos to working in parallel; these partnerships are getting people to talk to one another and getting the right people together, which has required extensive mapping of the ecosystem;
Funded by the European Union
1
such partnerships depend on parties identifying and finding common goals and areas of mutual interest, as “not everyone has the same interests” – which can be an intensive exercise; and the importance of dynamism and finding a balance between stability and flexibility within the system.
This is important, because there are many problems in our system The starting point for Dialogue 2 is problems with our policies, systems, and institutions to improve skills anticipation and planning. Our research (Allais et al. 2021) emphasises that skills planning is not and cannot be linear: there are serious limits to how well we can figure out upfront what skills will be needed in the medium and long term. Rather, what is important is ensuring education players are embedded into economic planning processes. For example, where there are industrial planning processes, policymakers from education systems, educational providers, or labour market intermediaries should be involved in these as well as other processes around building the economy. This can ensure that decisions related to industrial transformation both support and are supported by skills provision. Dialogue 2 unpacked examples of where this is happening. We focused on two sector processes and one local initiative to understand how skills can be embedded into demand planning and to gain some insights into how we can plan differently so that education can deliver or produce the actual skills needed by the economy. The two sector processes targeted were the auto manufacturing sector, which is the first sector to have entered into a master plan process, and the digital sector, which has become part of a demand-led skilling workstream initiative embarked upon by the Presidency as part of the Presidential Youth Employment Intervention (PYEI) (see box). We also looked at the Installation, Repair and Maintenance (IRM) initiative, which focuses on an initiative to boost township economies and is premised on developing demand and then supply skills linked to actual demand.
Implementing demand-led skilling workstreams In response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the urgency of the Economic Reconstruction and Recovery Plan), the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) adopted a revised skills strategy to address the systemic barriers within the skilling architecture that are inhibiting accelerated skilling and job creation. This strategy has integrated the National Pathway Management Network as a key intervention to enable transitions. It has also outlined a range of demand-led interventions that support the bridging of new entrants into the economy. This workstream approach is about more integrated planning and greater cooperation between government departments and other key stakeholders. It is about working on two levels: Be more proactive in terms of the delivery of skills (not as an afterthought) and being part of economic planning from the outset. It is important to understand that skills formation is a long-term proposition and we need to find a balance between adaptation and flexibility so that we do not dilute the foundation and core skills required for the economy.
Insights about how skills can be embedded into demand planning: auto, digital and installation, repair and maintenance Three panel discussions took place to focus on understanding and learning about partnership building and its challenges and successes; how skills planning is embedded in various processes; and the role of skills in technology change.
Auto sector panel discussion This panel discussion focused on both the national automotive master plan process, which puts skills at
INTEGRATING SKILLS INTO SECTORAL PLANNING
2
its centre, as well as the High Gear programme1. The following key themes emerged from the very robust discussion: Acknowledgement of centrality of skills in growing the sector Key to realising the targets in the automotive master plan is having skills as one of the targets and ensuring 60% local content, which is linked to incentive benefits. A major barrier to localisation is skills, such as those of toolmakers. High Gear created the platform for stakeholder engagement, and this is where everyone realised that “we aren’t going to get very far as a sector alone” and that it was in everyone’s interest to get involved, especially as companies had not focused sufficiently on skills in the past. The why and how of partnerships The High Gear programme is about taking an ecosystem approach. It’s about including all key stakeholders to create a more dynamic system in the long term. Putting this type of partnership together took time and involved careful mapping of the ecosystem. The International Youth Foundation (IYF) explained that part of a research process is understanding where other partnerships have failed and why, and then how to build the incentive structures within this to create a more cohesive and more dynamic system. The key partners, including IYF, the National Association of Automotive Component and Allied Manufacturers (NAACAM), and the DHET, were involved in a long codesign period, particularly within the college system. A key part of this is ensuring that the management and lecturers at the Technical Vocational Education and Training (TVET) colleges are brought along throughout the process, otherwise this could be a “make or break” situation, as they need to be involved and to inform curriculum upgrades. All stakeholders highlighted that the success of such a partnership will be measured by whether it can be upscaled and replicated in other sectors. Some of the challenges emerging from the discussion include identifying and managing a diverse range of 1
stakeholders from industry groups to local, provincial, and national government and identifying mutual interests, as “not everyone has the same interests”. Another challenge is leveraging where interests overlap and finding common goals and points of mutual benefit – but this is an intensive exercise. Skills planning NAACAM is increasingly taking a leadership role in coordinating skills development within the sector and is producing quarterly data on skills priorities within the automotive component manufacturing sector. This data is feeding into various processes such as in relation to curriculum upgrade work and around career guidance. Skills needs in the sector Various interesting inputs were made in this regard, including the fact that employers have a four-year lead time in developing apprentices and they should be able to plan for that instead of “thinking they can pick such skills off the street”. In addition, employers should be focusing on training linked to new technology and equipment, while the public system should focus on delivering solid foundational skills. Key to such skills are problem-solving capabilities and soft skills. An alternative view was that colleges and universities need to wait until technology is well established, and then to respond and incorporate it. There was some discussion around problems within some TVET colleges.
Digital sector panel discussion The digital sector is one of a number of sectors identified under the PYEI as a high-potential growth sector in terms of absorbing young people. Under the leadership of the Presidency, this sector has been part of a process to bring together key stakeholders to agree on a common set of priorities and to drive a set of projects that cut across various areas. This is an opportunity to infuse “demand-led” planning and thinking in the process by looking at how to improve access, develop skills, and link these skills to demand. The following themes emerged from the discussion:
The High Gear programme seeks to create a demand-driven public TVET system aligned with industry needs, and with quality
course delivery (along with IYF curricula enhancement tools) that generates positive learning and employment outcomes for youth. High Gear aims to demonstrate a model for greater industry involvement in TVET course design and delivery that generates enthusiasm from TVET educators and industry, while also generating positive returns for young people and employers. This programme (currently being implemented in the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal) is about demonstrating a model for creating dynamic industry TVET college partnerships that can then be upscaled more broadly to other provinces and other sectors. It is about creating opportunities within the automotive components manufacturing sector, in a way that benefits not only young people who are in the TVET system but also employers and industry more broadly. (IYF Baseline Report, June 2021, Singizi Consulting Africa)
3
Partnerships It is taking time to build this partnership, which is still in its early stages. Key parts of this process are about mapping out the ecosystem, bringing all the role players on board, and agreeing on a common set of priorities. It took up to two years to map out the digital ecosystem. Because the wider digital industry does not have a history of organisation or collective planning, much energy has been spent on building and maintaining momentum, dynamism and responsiveness. A key challenge to partnerships is creating aggregate demand while the system is not geared up to be flexible. Stakeholders indicated that because there is a disconnect between demand and the kind of skills being supplied, this collaborative initiative is critical to long-term planning. All acknowledged that the sector had huge potential to create jobs, with a target of 500 000 jobs by 2030 – the majority being focused on youth employment. Challenges Ensuring that the foundational competencies are in place so that young people can learn how to use new technology is an ongoing challenge.
IRM initiative This initiative aims to leverage local infrastructure development value chains to grow opportunities for small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), creating both demand for skills and skills through a skills ecosystem. The following emerged from the discussion: Partnerships Partnerships are at the heart of this initiative. Key players on the demand side are government and big business, in terms of supply chains and providing procurement opportunities for those at the margins. That means bringing small and informal townshipbased enterprises into the value and supply chains, and opening market access and opportunities for growth, which will increase the demand for skills and jobs in those communities where those businesses operate. On the supply side is the college system, which needs to be able to deliver the kinds of skills that the SMEs need. Challenges range from barriers that exist between the role players responsible for demand and those responsible for supply to understanding the needs of small township businesses. Successes have included the various pilot projects that have resulted, which have led to the increased uptake of young people becoming
plumbers, as well as improving the quality of delivery from the TVET and private college level. The challenge is how to effect systemic change so that pilot projects can be upscaled. This, one stakeholder pointed out, would require a broader partnership with government and all key players. Skills planning and needs A number of issues emerged during discussions, such as the value of pilot projects being able to identify the gaps in terms of what skills small township businesses need; the skills level of people who are training plumbers is very low; the curriculum is not aligned across the system, as each part of the system is doing its own thing, and what has happened in the plumbing sector is that there are a large number of people who call themselves plumbers but have not gone through an apprenticeship. Finally, in this regard the Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB), for example, has now made a provision that large companies need to train small contractors on its projects. A key challenge highlighted here is both the quantity and quality of workplace learning opportunities. The CIDB grading process will be able to identify which SMEs meet the minimum requirements to access the market and this will create more job opportunities, while business owners who lack qualifications can enter into recognition of prior learning opportunities.
Next steps While there are similar themes across the various partnerships, each context requires something slightly different. In other words, one size does not fit all. For the next dialogue, on 17 September, we focus the spotlight on our national systems, rules, and tools for skills planning. How do they support sectoral initiatives like the ones discussed here, and where can they be improved?
References Stephanie Allais, Volker Schӧer, Carmel Marock, Victor Kgalema, Nduvho Ramulongo, and Tolika Sibiya. 2021.‘Rethinking “Supply and Demand” of Technical and Vocational Education and Training: Insights from a Company Survey in Three Manufacturing Sectors in South Africa’. Journal of Education and Work forthcoming.
INTEGRATING SKILLS INTO SECTORAL PLANNING
4
Rules and tools that serve or block skills planning 1 September 2021
Briefing document for Dialogue 3 Stephanie Allais, REAL, Wits
Introduction Dialogue 2 explored how different sectors and industries (at a national or local level) are trying to embed skills planning within economic development processes. Dialogue 3 focuses on the extent to which the current systems for skills anticipation (and related tools and rules that are part of these systems) enable or hamper the interface between education and work. This is done in ways that support employment, industrial transformation and growth. What is the problem that the dialogue addresses? In South Africa, various policies, systems, and institutions have been created to improve skills anticipation and planning, to ensure that skills “supply” is meeting “demand” in the economy. And yet, everyone who works in the system knows that we have never-ending problems in matching vocational education graduates to labour markets and in meeting the skills needs of employers.
One answer, emerging from our research (Allais et al. 2021), emphasises that skills planning is not and cannot be linear. There are serious limits on how well we can figure out upfront what skills will be needed in the medium and long term. As highlighted previously, there are also serious problems on the “supply” side, in planning educational responses. Partly, this relates to time horizons. The capacity of education systems to provide short-term responses is inherently limited, as educational offerings take time to design and offer. Further, our research (Allais and Marock 2020) shows that constant attention to reforming education and training provision (the so-called supply side) in fact undermines education provision by creating a constantly shifting policy environment. Too often planners try to make interventions in education and training institutions only, and expect skill formation systems to change. So planning that requires short-term responses needs ongoing and direct relationships between educational providers and employers, as well as institutional
Funded by the European Union
1
capacity in both. And this is why Dialogue 2 focused on exploring how education players can be embedded into economic planning processes and how better and more meaningful relationships can be built between different role players. Where long-term planning decisions are made, planning for narrow or specific skills works against the interests of both prospective workers and employers, because of changes to the world of work. Further, bodies of knowledge that underpin the ability to perform work, and which are acquired in substantial educational processes, are crucial to perform work with autonomy, but there is no simple relationship between specific tasks in workplaces and such bodies of knowledge. This is why planning for the medium and long term has to be in relation to broad areas of expertise and occupational roles (Allais and Shalem 2018). But another explanation for the problems in our system may be that the various tools, processes, and mechanisms are not being used as intended, or are getting in the way of the kinds of planning that are needed within industries, sectors, and local economic development processes. And maybe there are parts of this that we can fix, amend, adapt, or simplify. This is the focus of Dialogue 3.
Tools for planning at a sector level
The idea was that these plans would aggregate employers’ priorities in each sector. Then, the SETA would know what skills were required across the sector, and would be able to fund the necessary training. While common sense has it that employers know what they need, in practice there have been serious challenges with the approach to skills planning based on aggregating bottom-up data obtained from employers. Problems emerged when it became increasingly apparent that there were a number of challenges related to the completion of these tools, including that companies are not always good at predicting future needs, and even in terms of current vacancies they have limitations. They tend to focus on identifying deficits in staff – which is why a skill like “critical thinking” comes up as a scarce skill, but is very unhelpful for planning. None of this is surprising –there is a huge body of research showing the limitations of analysis of skills needs by current employer-identified labour force gaps (Wolf 2002). The other challenge related to the above is that because SETAs only refund employers if the training they reported on corresponds to the plans they submitted, this encourages employers to primarily only indicate the skills needs in their training plans that they are able to address within the year. Anything lengthier – such as apprenticeships – would typically be excluded.
Developing sector skills plans
We will explore the various tools which are intended to assist in skills planning at a sectoral level.
Workplace Skills Plans (WSPs) and Annual Training Reports (ATRs) The first piece in the jigsaw puzzle of developing mechanisms for collecting labour force information for education planning was through the creation of Sector Education and Training Authorities (SETAs). They were established to perform a range of functions as labour market intermediaries – bodies that mediate between education institutions and workplaces. Key among their roles was developing a better understanding of companies’ skills needs. Employers pay a levy on their payroll and they receive a portion of their levy back on the submission of a WSP, which outlines where their skills gaps are, and an ATR against this plan. These tools are to enable SETAs to gain insight into what training takes place.
A key mechanism that is relied upon in the development of the sector skills plan is that of the Statistics South Africa (Stats SA) data. This data is used to supplement information about the skills required by the sector gathered through the WSP and the ART. Much of this research relies on national data sets provided by Stats SA, which is gathered through key surveys such as the Quarterly Labour Force Survey (QLFS). A challenge here is that the sectoral demarcation used by Stats SA does not correspond to the demarcation of the SETAs. What’s more, there are discrepancies in terms of the occupational frame used, which makes this analysis more complex. Furthermore, an analysis of one sector does not necessarily provide an indication of potential shortages across the economy, given the reality that many occupations cut across sectors and many graduates from a qualification do not necessarily work in the related occupation. More importantly, much of this data speaks to the current realities of the data but does not assist to develop a picture of how the sector is transforming, particularly within the context of responses to digital and climate changes.
RULES AND TOOLS THAT SERVE OR BLOCK SKILLS PLANNING
2
Rules and tools for planning at a national level Skills lists Currently, the main national planning process is the development of specific lists that categorise types of demand for skills. The list of Occupations in High Demand is a key list which marks a shift away from the notion of scarcity of skills to a notion of high demand, recognising that the skills that need to be prioritised for development could be skills that are currently scarce, or skills that are not necessarily scarce but are very important for enabling larger numbers of new entrants to access the economy. Within the list of Occupations in High Demand there are two lists: Priority Skills and Critical Skills. The Critical Skills List is the basis for decisions around visas and enables individuals to work in South Africa because they have skills that are scarce and cannot be developed in time. The Priority Skills List highlights the skills where demand can be met through a short-term training intervention or where there is likely to be ongoing demand, and where demand can therefore be met through shifting enrolment in certain programmes or the development and/or adaptation of qualifications and programmes. The extent to which these lists take into account the level of unpredictability in the labour market, as well as the changing nature of the economy, is a concern that is often highlighted by partners. Understanding whether and how these lists support planning and where they create obstacles to effective planning will be explored further in this dialogue, with a focus on ways to address these complexities.
OFO There are also concerns around how the Organising Framework for Occupations (OFO) is used, and for what. The OFO is one of two occupational classification systems in South Africa. The South African Standard Classification of Occupations (SASCO) is used by Stats SA for the classification of occupations obtained through the Population Census, Causes of Death, Marriages and Divorces, and the QLFS. The OFO (originally adopted by the then Department of Labour and now used by the Department of Higher Education and Training) is a coded hierarchical occupational classification system based on the International Labour Organization’s International Standard Classification of Occupations. The reason why the OFO was developed separately from SASCO is the subject of much debate, but the intention of the OFO was to standardise 3
occupational definitions and their up-to-date associated practice requirements. Policymakers hoped that this could then be used by educational institutions to develop their training programmes. The intention was that employers would update occupations on the OFO through workplace skills plans, which would lead to occupational definitions that would provide an accurate reflection of the labour market. However, employers rarely make significant updates to the definitions on the OFO and many sectors suggest that the OFO is not updated sufficiently to accommodate emerging occupations or to reflect jobs that are constituted by skills from across multiple occupations. This creates challenges for qualification development, which must be developed against occupations registered on the OFO, and complicates reporting, since employers are required to report against the OFO rather than in terms of how “jobs appear in the real world”.
The qualifications frameworks Our systems for translating workplace requirements into enrolment planning in education and training systems have challenges. In some cases, there is a nod to the aggregate lists, but links do not work well. This is partly because the different systems are supposed to engage with one another, but the logic is different. There are also rigidities in the rules in places. The Quality Council for Trades and Occupations (QCTO) recently engaged in a process of reconfiguring occupational qualifications – including revisiting the formal requirement for workplace experience, which learners now simply cannot get (and most could not get before Covid-19). It is also introducing new regulations to address the need for short programmes. At present, according to the National Qualifications Framework’s rules, short programmes can only be accredited as a “part qualification”, constituted by credits within a full qualification. The rationale for this is to address the proliferation of part qualifications that do not lead to a full qualification, as well as qualifications of different sizes. However, it creates the unintended consequence of negating the possibility that industry associations can determine the need for a short programme that is accredited and that enables the graduate to access a specific opportunity in the workplace. The formal qualifications requirements lead to planning based on where qualifications exist rather than on where demand is emerging, and we see the QCTO trying to create more dynamism. In conclusion, the Labour Market Intelligence Project (LMIP), which was initiated by the Department of Higher Education and Training, has bolstered these planning mechanisms with the LMIP, which augments the capacity to analyse these plans and consider the implications for skills in demand across the economy.
However, this process is equally constrained by the tools at our disposal and the complexity of understanding the relationship between education and work. All of the complexity described above is based on seeing skills as something to be specified by actors in the economy, in order to be “produced” by actors in the education system. This approach is not always serving us. This dialogue seeks to explore: how “rules and tools” that are necessary could be simplified and streamlined; ways to create more flexibility within the system where necessary; and ways to shift the focus to ongoing engagement around skills planning embedded in sectoral, industrial, or regional economic planning, and building the required capacity for this.
References Stephanie Allais and Carmel Marock. 2020. ‘Educating for Work in the Time of Covid-19: Moving beyond Simplistic Ideas of Supply and Demand.’ Southern African Review of Education 26 (1): 62–79. Stephanie Allais, Volker Schӧer, Carmel Marock, Victor Kgalema, Nduvho Ramulongo, and Tolika Sibiya. 2021. ‘Rethinking “Supply and Demand” of Technical and Vocational Education and Training: Insights from a Company Survey in Three Manufacturing Sectors in South Africa’. Journal of Education and Work forthcoming. Stephanie Allais and Yael Shalem (editors). 2018. Knowledge, Curriculum, and Preparation for Work. Leiden and Boston: Brill Sense. Alison Wolf. 2002. Does Education Matter? Myths about Education and Economic Growth. London: Penguin.
RULES AND TOOLS THAT SERVE OR BLOCK SKILLS PLANNING
4
Understanding and supporting more effective transitions to work 25 October 2021
Briefing document for Dialogue 4 Stephanie Allais, REAL, Wits
Introduction Dialogue 3 reflected on the “rules and tools” we use for skills planning, and how they differ depending on whether we are seeking to understand current and emerging needs or to understand skills anticipation for the medium to long term. Dialogue 4 builds on these insights and focuses on ways to embed skills planning into processes that stimulate demand. In doing so, the dialogue seeks to bring relevant stakeholders together to explore the emerging demand opportunities, the profiles of work seekers and the nature of interventions that can enable young people to both access opportunities and succeed in the labour market. The Presidential Youth Employment Intervention, which was officially launched last year, is a direct response to the challenge that too many young people are not transitioning from learning to earning. At the centre of this intervention is the national Pathway Management Network (PMN), a network of networks that seeks to increase aggregate demand
and to provide a seamless mechanism for young people to be linked to the opportunities generated, as well as to receive support appropriate to their context and pathway. The fourth dialogue will explore how the national PMN can contribute to a more dynamic approach to identifying emerging demand and associated skills interventions. This brief provides an overview of the national PMN, its objectives and how it is being operationalised, and locates it in the skills strategy developed in response to government’s Economic Reconstruction and Recovery Plan (ERRP).
The national PMN The national PMN aims to ensure that young people successfully transition into and through the labour market, in a context of unacceptably high youth unemployment. It has multiple dimensions, including the need to stimulate demand (increase the opportunities
Funded by the European Union
1
available); support linkages between demand and supply in ways that address the barriers young people experience; and enable unemployed youth to view and access opportunities in the economy, as well as the range of services that are available. Through the national PMN young people have access to a wide range of opportunities to grow their employability and improve their income. The services include access to available learning and work opportunities, support services and work-readiness training to help them navigate into employment and other economic opportunities. Young people will receive a basic package of support in person, online and over the phone, will complete online assessments and training, and will be matched to a wide range of opportunities.
of the entire system, including changes such as reducing data costs, and reducing barriers such as adapting qualifications requirements to be marketrelated). Approaches also include linking young people to opportunities and connecting them to different platforms in the network where they can build their profiles and receive nudges to jobs, work experiences and income-generating programmes, encouragement, work-seeker support, learning and opportunities.
How does the national PMN work? The “operation” of the network includes the following: Demand-side activation, creation and aggregation of opportunities through ecosystem facilitation, sector enablement, employer servicing and market intelligence to generate and identify appropriate jobs and other income-generating pathways for youth in the network across formal, informal, township and community-based opportunities.
The national PMN provides active support, through multiple channels, to support young people’s entry into, and retention in, the labour market. It is accessible via a national mobi-site, zero-rated by major mobile networks, as well as through physical centres where they can register and receive support. These include existing infrastructure such as the Department of Employment and Labour (DEL) Centres, the National Youth Development Agency (NYDA) centres and other public facilities.
Appropriately matching the pathway of young people to opportunities through an inclusive linkages platform. Engagement with government’s formal education and skilling systems to shape appropriate learning pathways for young people in the network to be able to secure opportunities, including second-chance matric, work-integrated learning, bursaries and further education.
These changes are being supported through different approaches, e.g. sector-based approaches, public employment programmes, driving system change that addresses barriers and supports inclusive hiring and reducing unemployment (identifying policy, regulatory and other changes that will improve the outcomes
A network of networks (demand and supply) Tshepo 1Million
NYDA Other networks
Harambee (managing SAYouth.mobi and support line)
SALDRU / UJ Basic package of support
Youth serving orgs
National Pathway Management Network: SA Youth
mPowa (DSI / mlab services platform)
DEL PES (ESSA / Labour Centres)
YES
To transition and pathway young people UNDERSTANDING AND SUPPORTING MORE EFFECTIVE TRANSITIONS TO WORK
2
The DEL is the lead department responsible for facilitating the implementation of the national PMN with support and overall strategic oversight provided by the Presidency as the custodian of the Presidential Youth Employment Intervention. The management and coordination of the national PMN is governed by a Memorandum of Agreement between the Presidency, key government departments and the NYDA. The DEL and the Presidency have established a coordinating committee of the signatories that meets regularly to maintain alignment of efforts across government and the NYDA to drive the realisation of the objectives of the national PMN within government and other social partners. There are a range of stakeholders outside of government who form part of the national PMN as illustrated in the diagram above. They participate in a technical committee that includes a wider set of government departments. The technical committee is
developing mechanisms to share information across partner platforms and databases to ensure equity of access to opportunities across the network for all young people in the network. The platforms and databases include: SAYouth.mobi (Harambee), YES, Basic Package of Support (the Southern Africa Labour and Development Research Unit and the University of Johannesburg), mPowa (mLab and the Department of Science and Innovation), Khetha (Department of Higher Education and Training [DHET] ), as well as the Employment Services of South Africa (DEL). While the DEL and the Presidency drive implementation and coordination, the DHET is driving the coordination of sector workstreams (highlighted during the previous dialogues). The national PMN is integrated into the skills strategy, developed by the DHET, in response to the ERRP.
Skills strategy: support for the South African ERRP The skills strategy for the ERRP – developed under the auspices of the Minister of Higher Education, Science and Technology – has integrated the national PMN as a key intervention to enable transitions and support bridging (aligning supply and demand). The strategy addresses the interventions that are required to ensure the successful implementation of the ERRP. There is a particular focus on interventions to allow large numbers of young people to access opportunities in the short term to ensure that they are able to be absorbed into high-potential growth sectors in order to boost job creation. There is also a focus on developing interventions that will support the retraining of workers to prevent further job losses (as in the case of sectors such as tourism). Cutting across these imperatives is the need to support inclusive growth. The interventions are in most cases directed at different sectors or groups of sectors, depending on specific requirements. For example, sectors that are growing need immediate short-
3
term skills to enable access and to support this growth. Sectors that are trying to preserve jobs may need specific reskilling interventions. Another issue cutting across many of the interventions is work-readiness. This will be built into the various curricula and programmes of the interventions described below. The funding modalities will take this component into account to ensure that it can be effectively integrated into interventions. Though the strategy puts focus on the skills subsystem playing an enabling role, the entire postschool education and training (PSET) system, which includes universities and colleges, will contribute to delivering the plan. Additionally, the strategy seeks to rally the support of government departments such as Trade, Industry and Competition, DEL, Public Works and Infrastructure, Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development, Small Business Development, Telecommunications and Postal Services and the private sector to respond to, support and ensure there are no skills constraints in the implementation of the ERRP.
The types of interventions aimed at the immediate provision of required skills include access to targeted skills programmes (amending funding and quality assurance mechanisms linked to ERRP sectors to allow for immediate and short interventions – both accredited and not); updating or amending existing technical and vocational education programmes to ensure they meet demand in key sectors within the ERRP; access to workplace experience (work-integrated learning and internships); retraining/upskilling to preserve jobs (building on the Temporary Employer/Employee Relief Scheme, funding
short programmes and qualifications); increased access to programmes resulting in qualifications in priority sectors (increasing enrolments – to meet medium-term skills needs) and meeting demand in the List of Critical Occupations (importing skills). Supporting the transition from education to work, the strategy focuses on supporting entrepreneurship and innovation; embedding skills planning into sectoral processes; supporting widespread adoption of the national PMN and strengthening the PSET system through targeted changes of systems and institutions.
UNDERSTANDING AND SUPPORTING MORE EFFECTIVE TRANSITIONS TO WORK
4
Understanding and supporting more effective transitions to work 8 November 2021
Post-dialogue brief: Dialogue 4 REAL
Introduction This fourth dialogue reflected and reinforced the observations and learning from the previous dialogues and focused in particular on what we can do to help transition youth into the labour market. Building on the methodologies which have been explored during the dialogue series, we sought to address the central problem that underpins the Presidential Youth Employment Intervention (PYEI) – that too many young people are simply not transitioning from learning to earning. Of the more than one million young people who are entering the labour market every year, more than 65% of them remain outside of employment, education and training. Those young people who do manage to access some opportunities often find themselves zigzagging on broken pathways, falling in and out of education, getting short-term work, and simply being unable to realise their potential and gain a foothold and traction in the labour market and in the economy. The extent of this challenge highlights the importance of identifying what is working in the system and building on the insights from the
previous dialogues. We identified the rules and tools that can assist us in enabling these transitions through infusing a dynamism in the way in which we engage demand and supply planning so that we develop a more agile and responsive approach to demand-led skills. We explored which tools work for, and support the planning of, current and emerging demand and which ones enable medium- to longterm planning. We also explored ways in which this could be done within “communities of trust” in order to support strong institutions with “adaptive capacity” that are able to deliver a combination of general and specific skills so that individuals can adjust to different environments and move across different sectors. Within this context we focused on the role of the national Pathway Management Network (PMN) as a central pillar of the PYEI, and discussed how this could play a stronger role in informing how we plan the supply interventions to respond to demand. This conversation is located within the skill strategy responding to the Economic Reconstruction and Recovery Plan (ERRP). To illustrate how this could work in practice we focused on how youth can access
Funded by the European Union
1
opportunities in agriculture and tourism through looking at what opportunities exist, at the current and emerging demand, and the extent to which there are interventions to enable new entrants to transition into these opportunities and in particular in the case of tourism, how to preserve jobs. When reflecting on whether these interventions are sufficient, we considered the insights that the PMN can offer about who the work seekers are (what are their qualifications, skills and experience) and what it will take to ensure that they can access and succeed in opportunities. We also touched on how Employment Services of South Africa (ESSA) can support this process for those over 35 years of age and in particular with regard to individuals who may require retraining to remain in the labour market.
A deeper dive into the sessions We began with an overview of the pathways that Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) graduates follow In setting the scene for the emerging conversation around the transition of youth from learning to earning, the dialogue focused on the findings of a tracer study completed on the destination of TVET College graduates to strengthen employment promotion in South Africa. This was to understand the extent to which graduates are absorbed into the labour market. The overriding finding was that labour market outcomes were better than we thought, but there is still room for improvement.
Skills development Economic diplomacy, and further integration into the African continent Support for SMMEs, cooperatives and start-ups Innovation Other
Nearly 50% were not employed. Employment outcomes differed based on field of study, while labour market outcomes differed by field of study, gender and level of study. A total of 28% of those in further education and training went on to university. Broad findings point to the fact that improving transitioning required collaboration and strong capacity at the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET), while if we are going to move towards evidence-based and informed skills planning, we need dialogues and hard data.
The skills strategy in response to the ERRP and the PMN The DHET’s deputy director-general for skills development, Mr Zukile Mvalo, explained the context for drafting a skills strategy in response to the ERRP. The department identified 10 priority interventions as reflected in the diagram below:
Infrastructure investment and delivery Macro-economic policy interventions
Communications and the digital economy
More than 40% of learners were in some form of further education and training.
Priority interventions
Resource mobilization and anticorruption efforts Regulatory reforms Building social compacts Strengthening the capacity of the state
The picture was not as dire as imagined, as 30% of learners were in some kind of employment.
Industrialisation through localisation Energy security Support for the recovery and growth of tourism, and cultural and creative industries Green economy interventions Mass public employment interventions Strengthening agriculture and food security
Gender equality and economic inclusion of women and youth
Enablers
Key findings:
Linked strategies and plans
UNDERSTANDING AND SUPPORTING MORE EFFECTIVE TRANSITIONS TO WORK
2
The strategy seeks to facilitate demand-led training to enable new entrants to access opportunities in the labour market; retraining and/or upskilling to preserve jobs, as in the case of tourism (building on the Temporary Employer/Employee Relief Scheme, funding short programmes and qualifications), and updating the Critical Skills List and associated regulatory mechanisms to enable migrants to contribute to the growth of the economy. As part of the strategies, which focus on the provision of targeted education and training programmes, it proposes the following: Expand and enable the provisioning of short skills programmes (both accredited and nonaccredited) to respond to skills gaps identified in this strategy. Support the adaptation of programmes offered by TVET Colleges to respond to skills gaps identified in this strategy. Expand the provision of workplace-based learning opportunities to respond to occupational shortages and skills gaps identified in this strategy (both work-integrated learning and internships). Increase enrolments in qualification-based programmes that respond to occupational shortages identified in this strategy. Review and revise education and training qualifications, programmes and curricula to respond to occupational shortages and skills gaps identified in this strategy. Finally, the strategy proposes a number of interventions focused on enabling and supporting education-to-work transitions, such as strengthening entrepreneurship development programmes; embedding skills planning into sectoral economic planning processes and vice versa; facilitating the use of the national PMN in the post-school education and training (PSET) system; and strengthening the PSET system.
Entrepreneurship development A number of participants endorsed the approach outlined by Mvalo, and especially the focus on entrepreneurship. He indicated that if the country is to address unemployment, entrepreneur development hasto be improved. This required the entrenchment of an entrepreneurship culture, especially among the youth, as that’s where the challenge is.
3
Understanding the PMN: an inclusive approach to skills The national PMN was launched by President Cyril Ramaphosa on 16 June 2021. It is a network of networks that seeks to ensure that young people have visibility of, and access to, opportunities for learning, work and experience across the network. The network also provides access to career guidance, information about services and events, as well as different forms of digital learning and ways to access volunteer opportunities. The PMN is supported by multiple partners from government, nongovernmental organisations and the private sector. Harambee’s model was outlined as an example of the way in which the PMN could support skills planning for current and emerging opportunities. In the early stages of Harambee there was a careful process of determining demand, and then sourcing and matching young people to the demand and finally putting in place a bridging programme to address any skills gaps to allow the young person to access and succeed in the opportunity. This model has gone through several iterations so that the essence is maintained while the model is scaled up. The new approach provides for a more inclusive system whereby young people build their experience and skill set within the PMN instead of just applying for opportunities and then waiting. So, the value of the network is that it allows for key role players to know more about the work seekers and the opportunities in order to determine what skills interventions are required.
Modelling more dynamic approaches to defining the necessary skills interventions This session sought to explore how – through the PMN – we can begin to improve how we plan for current and emerging needs. This was achieved by having a discussion with key role players in agriculture and tourism to define the opportunities that are emerging, reflecting on this demand and the implications for skills required and then considering how structures such as SAYouth.mobi and ESSA can assist in this process by allowing for a deeper understanding of the work seekers. Agriculture Understanding current and emerging demand in this growth sector requires a consideration of the land issue, which is complex. This does not negate the potential of the sector to create employment opportunities across the value chain
from production to value-added services across the market (including logistics, processing and packaging). The implications for skills emerging from this demand range from economists, engineers, marketers, plumbers, mechanics and soil experts. The group observed that there has been economic stagnation in the rural areas, which has meant that there has not been a focus on linking new entrants to opportunities in these areas – so the right skills are not in place. The group emphasised the need for an integrated system to ensure youth are able to access education, skills, land and credit, coupled with a flexible and innovative approach to enterprise development finance. It was noted that this requires a partnership model to be adopted between government and the private sector. Harambee highlighted the value of partnerships, for example an initiative with the Agricultural Development Agency, where more than 600 youth were trained to grow vegetables at home and now have plans to build their skills to monetise that. It was noted that there is interest among youth in agriculture and the challenge was to reduce barriers for youth participation – including, access to finance, land, skills and finding partners that are gender-sensitive. In terms of interventions to meet demand, ESSA highlighted its role in trying to match young people with the right opportunities through collaborating with the private sector (as well as building relationships with the Sector Education and Training Authorities) and providing career counselling, access to information, opportunities around learnerships, apprenticeships and other training opportunities. Other issues that were highlighted were: The need to address the importing of noncritical skills from neighbouring countries in fruit picking/sheep shearing. Exploring opportunities that exist in urban agriculture, with a focus on entrepreneurship. This could be supported by developing a National Qualifications Framework level 1 training for youth to understand the business side of agriculture.
Tourism Discussion mainly focused on the immediate needs for the recovery of the sector. It was noted that as a result of the pandemic almost half a million people lost their jobs, which has meant that the sector lost young people with experience. Despite the state of the sector, demand is there and is growing as the country comes out of the pandemic. The sector needs tour bus drivers who have a range of skills, such as understanding geography and customer service. This discussion also emphasised the importance of drivers being able to speak multiple languages and having digital skills. Interventions to meet demand include refresher courses that build on some of the strong programmes that are in place in TVET Colleges. Both ESSA and SAYouth.mobi indicated that they had work seekers on their databases that had some of the skills needed, and they identified that the gap that was needed to be bridged included equipping people with foreign languages and ensuring that they are work-ready.
The way forward What emerged across both sector discussions was the value of the PMN in testing assumptions about whether young people will be willing to enter an occupational family, which will provide an indication for employers of the profile of work seekers, and can assist in the design of targeted interventions to bridge gaps. The PMN will also ensure that tracking of these young people takes place so that it is possible to have a better understanding of the extent to which graduates of different programmes access opportunities (for example, the tracer study showed which TVET graduates access employment). These highlight the possibilities of the PMN as a mechanism to be part of our broader toolbox for improving planning. This will require collective efforts to popularise platforms such as SAYouth.mobi and ESSA, and structured engagement with partners to reflect on supply and demand in an ongoing way.
Creating learnerships on commercial farms coupled with short courses around capacity-building and exploring how to merge agriculture with technology.
UNDERSTANDING AND SUPPORTING MORE EFFECTIVE TRANSITIONS TO WORK
4
A framework for improving skills coordination: Insights from the Skills Dialogue series 18 November 2021
Briefing document for Dialogue 5 REAL
A Guidance Note for Framing Skills Engagement
Shift the ways in which engagements take place, in such a way that they build collaborative spaces for discussions.
This draft guidance note, to be discussed in the fifth and final Skills Dialogue, aims to integrate the learning from the dialogue series, to enable role players to engage with specific skills problems more constructively. The framework aims to assist role players in arriving at practical solutions that can be collectively implemented, with the purpose of enhancing the efficacy of the skills development system to support young people to obtain work and to prevent further job loss.
Find ways of making our existing policies, systems, rules and tools enabling rather than a hindrance.
The idea of a new framing of engagement is neither to reinvent structures nor to downplay the complexity of the skills system and the need for systemic change. Rather, the aim is to:
Bring the players most directly involved in implementation into discussions to ensure that supply meets current and emerging demand (and locating this within the context of mediumto long-term planning). The guidelines provide four practical steps that need to be considered when planning any stakeholder dialogue or skills engagement to tackle particular challenges in the skills system. The four steps are framed with four guiding questions – why, who, how and what – that stakeholders and policymakers
Funded by the European Union
1
should answer when initiating and implementing a skills engagement. They thus form a framework for engagement.
WHY: Understanding the real objective of initiating skills engagements Many of our engagements fail because they try to do too many different things, and are not clear enough about their core objective. They get too absorbed with everything – and try to tackle all aspects of the skills system at once. Furthermore, they tend to see skills interventions as solutions to problems that can’t be solved through skills. Instead, we need to tackle specific problems in the context of an understanding of the whole system. So start by asking: Why are you initiating this skills engagement? For example, is it: To determine how to build providers and programmes that meet the needs of the clothing and textile industry?
To determine how best to provide specific short-term skills that meet the immediate needs of local economies and support young work seekers to access opportunities?
To determine the long-term trajectory of the industrial policy of the automotive sector and the extent to which current skills provision meets the anticipated skills demands?
To determine the enrolment planning trajectory for the university system?
To ensure that we avoid duplication of resources so that we can improve the impact of the resources spent on skills training?
WHO: Considering which role players need to be involved in the engagement We have many formal structures, but they don’t always relate to specific problems and issues. The crucial issue here is getting the right players in the room. This means ensuring that the role players who are most directly involved in the skills issue in question are part of the discussion. For the dialogues, getting the right people in the room and talking to one another has required extensive mapping of the ecosystem to ensure a combination of individuals focused on growing their companies as well as those involved in the skills system. Therefore, the crucial point is focusing on the specific problem to be solved, as per question one, and
then determining who needs to be involved in the engagement: Who is contributing to increased demand for specific skills or qualifications? These are the players who need to be in the room! And then who are the players who understand who the work seekers are and the kinds of interventions that will be required to meet this demand? These players need to be in the room! Finally, who can enable these interventions to take place – through incentives and ensuring that they meet other system requirements? These players also need to be in the room!
HOW: Finding new ways to engage The perspectives that each role player carries within this have to have been taken on board in the shaping of solutions –so perspective-taking (seeing and listening to another's perspective) is crucial. Understanding the roles of each player and the contribution they can make to realising a shared purpose, based on the understanding that we “cannot go it alone”, is also essential. The shared purpose is directly linked to each entity’s focus and delivery linked to outcomes; clear view of the value of collective engagement. Building trust through collective problem-solving and setting of priorities is crucial. All of this highlights the need to create “communities of trust” where participation is active and open, focusing on how the engagement is planned and unfolds: Identify and find shared goals and areas of mutual interest and gain. Adopt a systems view to locating your problem, but don’t try to solve all the problems of the system. Adopt a problem-solving approach to remove obstacles and find practical solutions. This requires a focus on: Listening, empathy and self-awareness; Adopting a facilitative approach with low ego needs; Systems thinking (recognising the underlying causes and the nature of the complex solution);
A FRAMEWORK FOR IMPROVING SKILLS COORDINATION: INSIGHTS FROM THE SKILLS DIALOGUE SERIES
2
Connecting with diverse stakeholders and a central champion (entity) to hold all accountable; and The ability to design, convene and manage a process of partnership. Explore avenues and approaches to creating a sense of urgency and a collective plan of action.
WHAT: What will enable this to be successful? Building adaptive capacity that meets purpose Here, the key focus is, what will it take from the state? And what would it take from other players? One key insight is that we need more responsiveness in the application of our “rules and tools” in order to maintain a focus on the objectives. The key learning from the dialogues is that rules and tools can sometimes make processes more difficult and in other cases they can enable the realisation of the objectives. This requires the key role players in the system to be flexible and the rules and tools to be adapted to respond to the objective. For example, there is a need to consider whether we are seeking to understand the skills required to meet current and emerging demand or whether we are seeking to anticipate the skills required for the medium to long term, and then we need to determine the “rules and tools” that work in the respective time horizons. The dialogues presented insights into what is possible, drawing on and feeding into processes currently under way. These include the Presidential Youth Employment Initiative (PYEI), the Covid Skills Strategy attached to the Economic Reconstruction and Recovery Plan (ERRP), and the Master Plan processes. The dialogues also highlighted the shortcomings of our planning systems for the medium and long term. Many of our instruments focus only on current and emerging skills (such as the plans that are developed based on an aggregation of skills needs outlined in the workplace skills plans). By contrast, our qualification and quality assurance system is designed for medium- to long-term interventions, given the length of time it takes to review occupations and associated qualifications, and this makes short-term interventions difficult. There is a need to build more flexibility into the system so that the interventions can be responsive in the short term and have a stronger focus on the 3
qualifications that can prepare learners to respond to changing trends for the medium to longer term. All of this requires a focus on what is required from the state and other stakeholders. Examples include: Developing strong institutions and creating linkages across the ecosystem. Using the national Pathway Management Network (PMN) to understand who the work seekers are – their existing qualifications, skills and experiences – in order to determine what will be required to bridge these work seekers and enable them to access and succeed in the identified opportunities. Determining the nature of the interventions and supporting strengthening providers so that they have adaptive capacity to respond to demand and to deliver relevant interventions. Ensuring that incentives are in place to enable these interventions to be delivered as required (taking into account the demand-led approaches outlined in the Skills Strategy). Using support mechanisms such as the national PMN to track the work seeker journey so that it is possible to understand the transitions and provide work seekers with the requisite support, as well as to create a basis for ongoing learning in the system.
An overview of the key insights from the dialogue series The proposals for framing skills engagement draw on insights from the first four dialogues. The starting point of the dialogue series is that there is high-level and widespread agreement about the challenges in the post-school education and training system, including: (i) that there is a plethora of structures and forums that seek to give voice to the views and interests of stakeholders and ensure coordination of the supply and demand of skills, and yet we struggle to trust and communicate with one another and to agree on priorities and (ii) that despite the rules and tools for labour market analysis, vocational (occupational) education and training is still often planned in isolation from industrial strategies and local economic development programmes. These factors aggravate the challenges that young people face when seeking to transition from “learning to earning,” or when enrolling for learning programmes that will enhance their chance of earning.
We attempted, through the dialogues, to scaffold learning on the foundations of positive experiences in the system in order to build a framework for engagement that leads to better solutions, or that unblocks the blockages in our system. To do this we framed the dialogues through the following four key elements: Focusing on the specific purpose of the engagement. Ensuring that the relevant role players are in the engagement (and that the skills engagement is embedded in economic planning). Exploring a different way of engaging. Retaining a consistent focus on the objectives of skills planning.
Key insights from Dialogue 1 The first dialogue showcased examples from the clothing and textile industry where parties are effectively engaging (for example in clothing and textiles). We explored what is necessary to build more trusting and purposeful partnerships in the longer term, as well as to inform the nature of the dialogue process. For both, an inclusive space that supports collective problem-solving is required. The following elements were identified:
Ingredients of collaborative partnerships Listening to one another’s perspectives. Participating in an active and open way. Creating a shared sense of urgency and political will. Building common purpose based on the understanding that we ‘“cannot go it alone”. Identifying priorities with an understanding of the need for mutual gain. Focusing on ways to remove obstacles and find practical solutions. Developing trust in an ongoing and iterative process.
Key insights from Dialogue 2 Dialogue 2 explored how our policies, systems and institutions can improve skills anticipation and planning. Our research (Allais et al. 2021) emphasises that time horizons have an impact on the “rules and tools” that we need to utilise when thinking about demand for skills as well as planning the provision of skills. Time horizons also impact on the nature of the interventions that are required and the ways in which stakeholders are involved in processes. While skills anticipation to meet medium- and long-term demand is typically at the level of trends and therefore requires that learners attain qualifications that can allow them to acquire specific skills in the workplace quickly, understanding current and emerging demand requires that education and industry players jointly determine the specific demand as well as the interventions that can meet this demand in the short term while building the overall system. This second dialogue explored three examples where key stakeholders in the respective ecosystems are working towards a more integrated approach to skills planning. Two of the examples focused on sector processes (auto and digital) and one considered skills planning within a local geographic space (Installation, Repair and Maintenance). We sought to understand how skills planning can be embedded in demand planning, so that education and training can deliver or produce the actual skills currently needed by the economy. These examples demonstrated a number of issues in relation to building partnerships and showed how we can plan differently to achieve a different outcome. They also highlighted the critical importance of embedding skills planning into demand processes. This dialogue also reinforced the importance of strong institutions that can provide quality programmes against qualifications and have the adaptive capacity to provide shorter interventions in a flexible and responsive manner.
Deepening our understanding of meeting demand in the skills space Relationships should be ongoing and evolving, as opposed to the idea of once-off planning; We need to move away from working in silos; Partnerships are getting people to talk to one another and getting the right
A FRAMEWORK FOR IMPROVING SKILLS COORDINATION: INSIGHTS FROM THE SKILLS DIALOGUE SERIES
4
people together – this has required extensive “mapping of the ecosystems”; Partnerships depend on parties identifying and finding common goals and areas of mutual interest, as “not everyone has the same interests” – which can be an intensive exercise; and Dynamism and a balance between stability and flexibility within the system are crucial.
Key insights from Dialogue 3 The third dialogue explored how these initiatives could be supported by reviewing our national system with a focus on the rules and tools for skills planning. We considered which help and which hinder, in order to determine how they can be improved. This dialogue reinforced the point emerging from the previous dialogue, which is that the “rules and tools” used for skills planning differ depending on time horizons. As a result, it is not about an overhaul of the system but about working out which tools work for, as well as support, planning for current and emerging demand, and which ones enable medium- to longterm planning. In addition, the dialogue highlighted the value and centrality of building a “community of trust”. It also provided a deeper understanding of the importance of strong institutions with “adaptive capacity” that are able to deliver a combination of general and specific skills so that individuals can adjust to different environments and move across different sectors.
What we learnt about “adaptive capacity” Adaptive capacity relates to the need to ensure that there are stable and agile institutions within the skills system. Stable institutions can be more agile: they can provide programmes against qualifications, and allow for some flexibility to respond to emerging needs, plus they can offer shorter and more focused programmes to prepare individuals to access and succeed in opportunities that are available. There can only be agility in institutions if they are strong, with capacity and resources, and this requires a stability of funding and a focus on the development of staff (lecturers and managers) in these institutions.
5
Key insights from Dialogue 4 The fourth dialogue extended the conversation about the methods that can be used to understand current and emerging skills through a focus on youth transitions, and ways in which the PMN can support a dynamic approach to bridging work seekers into the labour market. The PMN, which is the central pillar of the PYEI, offers a mechanism that can be used by partners to plan and implement demand-led training in ways that improve the transition of young people from education to work. While education and skills are only one component of the solution to the problem of unemployment – especially in the context of structural unemployment – this session highlighted ways in which we can improve aspects of transitions through: Understanding demand; Implementing more targeted interventions; and Offering young people the opportunity to complete programmes against well-designed occupational qualifications. To illustrate this, the dialogue focused on two priority sectors – agriculture and tourism - which have been identified in the PYEI. Agriculture is seen as a key growth sector with the potential to absorb youth, and tourism has been identified as a priority sector for recovery and growth. These sector discussions included key stakeholders to explore opportunities (demand) and how structures such as SAYouth. mobi and Employment Services of South Africa can assist in this process by identifying potential work seekers who have the skills to access opportunities. They sought to illustrate how planning processes for current and emerging needs can be dynamic by using the approach incorporated in the national PMN.
Where to from here? We are proposing the following: Feed insights about the how into key structures – such as the Sector Education and Training Authorities, the National Skills Authority and the Human Resource Development Council of South Africa (HRDC) – and explore how this approach can enrich the nature of the engagement in these structures and the ability of role players in these structures to build trust (among the role players). This should be done in ways that allow for a shared vision and
collective response to the challenge to be agreed and acted upon. Specifically feed the learning about the who and the what into the workstreams that have been established to address the imperatives of the Skills Strategy for the ERRP, including the PYEI. This will help ensure that the right people are in the workstreams, and that they remain focused on a defined problem and arrive at a solution that can leverage collective resources and actions to ensure that young people can transition into the economy and that, in other sectors, workers can remain in the labour market. (Note that in the dialogues we have already begun to build this approach into priority sectors as set out in the ERRP, including Auto; Clothing and Textile; Digital; Installation, Repair and Maintenance; and Agriculture and Tourism.)
Build the learning about the how into the Technical Implementation Forum so that it can effectively coordinate and monitor interventions to address current and emerging demand (that is giving expression to the Skills Strategy responding to the ERRP (including the PYEI). We also propose building the learning about the what so that it can enable the system to respond to what is needed to ensure the objectives of the Skills Strategy are realised, taking into account the reports from the workstreams (which report into the Technical Implementation Forum). Where these key structures – such as the HRDC – adopt this approach, they will monitor the extent to which the who, what and how are given expression in the way in which the Department of Higher Education and Training, and other key role players, support the implementation of the Skills Strategy for the ERRP, as well as the implementation of the broader post-school education and training plan.
A FRAMEWORK FOR IMPROVING SKILLS COORDINATION: INSIGHTS FROM THE SKILLS DIALOGUE SERIES
6