Implications of QCTO OQSF Policy document


Front Page Looking For… Quality Council for Trades & Occupations (QCTO) Implications of QCTO OQSF Policy document

Viewing 5 posts - 6 through 10 (of 18 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #85320

    Thank you Christopher, that is a very good observation.

    To my mind, we regularly spend time on policy and strategy & legal documents, which are all very professional and look good, but we don’t seem to spend as much time and give as much thought into how will we will actually implement.

    Personally, I think that we need to start from the other end and ask – what needs to be done?
    70% of youth are unemployed.
    Let’s start there, and ask what is the minimum we can do quickly to resolve unemployment – now – today, tomorrow.

    We can build theory and knowledge along the way – and later.
    Anyway, that’s my opinion – others can disagree.

    I keep thinking of Professor Stephanie Allais, for whose work I have enormous respect. Her view is that people can’t be prepared like other factors of production, and just sent to the workplace.

    I also know from experience, that workplaces don’t work the way the books say they do.

    So when I put that together, I conclude – let’s just work out how to get young people into the workplace – and proceed from there.

    I realise that dropping the workplace component as a requirement is because there are so few workplaces taking young people, and it has been difficult to get placements for learners to conclude their qualifications.

    So let’s analyse why that is.

    #85321

    Thank you Christopher, that is a very good observation.

    To my mind, we regularly spend time on policy and strategy & legal documents, which are all very professional and look good, but we don’t seem to spend as much time and give as much thought into how will we will actually implement.

    Personally, I think that we need to start from the other end and ask – what needs to be done?
    70% of youth are unemployed.
    Let’s start there, and ask what is the minimum we can do quickly to resolve unemployment – now – today, tomorrow.

    We can build theory and knowledge along the way – and later.
    Anyway, that’s my opinion – others can disagree.

    I keep thinking of Professor Stephanie Allais, for whose work I have enormous respect. Her view is that people can’t be prepared like other factors of production, and just sent to the workplace.

    I also know from experience, that workplaces don’t work the way the books say they do.

    So when I put that together, I conclude – let’s just work out how to get young people into the workplace – and proceed from there.

    I realise that dropping the workplace component as a requirement is because there are so few workplaces taking young people, and it has been difficult to get placements for learners to conclude their qualifications.

    So let’s analyse why that is.

    #85333
    Lynel Farrell
    Keymaster

    Thank you, Sylvia, for a very important discussion!

    If we look at the legacy qualifications, the combination was fundamental, core, and a selection so elective unit standards, Now we change over to knowledge, practical, and workplace components – which makes sense.

    Providers have been faced with the burden of finding Employers that will open their doors in order for the learner to obtain workplace experience – this is not always that easy.

    Each Occupational Qualification is unique to the Occupation, where some are more technical and others are general (for instance office administrator). There are definitely room for simulated workplaces, to ensure that the learner is catered for, especially when you are unable to find an Employer that will open their workplace for 20 learners, monitor them whilst operations are being delayed, additional staff might be needed, mentors need to be allocated, reports needs to be completed as well as logbooks. We are aware that many businesses have downsized (some have closed down) during this terrible pandemic.

    If we take the simulated workplace component away, many providers will not be able to exit their learners, due to not having sufficient access to real workplaces.

    Here I see providers using their subject matter experts, creating an environment that gives the look and feel of a real workplace, ensure that the learners get the best experience, logging their hours, completing tasks.

    But hold on, this does not end here. Not many providers will have sufficient space to create these simulated workplace training rooms, the set up could be costly. This is where providers need to start engaging with each other (not always that easy). If I had created a simulated workplace “training room” for the Computer Technician with all the tools, equipment, computers etc, I would open this to other providers that are also offering this qualification whom do not have access to a Workplace, and perhaps they have a simulated workplace room that I could use.

    We know that the workplace component is an issue, so the simulated workplace component comes in at a time that we need it most. This is my opinion on the simulated workplace component. The issue seems to be addressed which makes it easier for the provider (if at all possible).

    Each Occupational Qualification has a breakdown of what is required for the workplace experience components (they are not the same, and are specific to the occupation). This will help the provider in setting up a simulated workplace (if possible).

    Interesting discussion, thank you once again Sylvia.

    #85334

    Thanks Lynel for very useful practical comments. I like your idea of providers working together to create simulated workplaces. In all the tool-dominated, technical, & IT environments that will be possible.

    It may lack the communication & political dynamics of a real workplace, but we need to make choices in this difficult economic environment – that is likely to worsen in the near future.

    Personally, I would have liked more investigation into the constraints upon workplaces – why they don’t take learners, (the things you mention, the bureaucracy and cash flow implications), and efforts to resolve and change that – rather than change the qualification format.

    #85339

    Hi Lynel,
    Overnight, I carried on thinking about what I had said and it made me think that there is something else that needs to be brought out in the implications of the change.

    When there is a Learning Programme that an employer hosts at their workplace, the learner signs an employment contract for the duration of that Learning Programme. The learner gains work experience in the real world, and all of the conditions that go with it – amongst others UIF.

    Now if the Skills Development Provider is going to provide the practical compoent through simulated work experience, is that provider going to provide the learner with an employment contract, and deduct UIF?

    Our national emergency is to get youth (sitting at 70% unemployment) into work – this doesn’t meet that requirement. Or am I missing something?

Viewing 5 posts - 6 through 10 (of 18 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Share on Social Media