Linking vocational education and training with industry in Australia and China

This report describes and compares the establishment, operation and take-up of collaborative activities between industry and vocational education and training in Australia and China.

• Country comparisons between Australia and China, in terms of industry and vocational education linkages sector, are not straightforward. They need to take account of major differences in individual country traditions, and the size of political, economic and educational structures and institutions. Nevertheless, it is clear that, because of its apprenticeship system, Australia has had a head start in establishing these linkages.
• Changing economic, political and educational philosophies of successive governments in China have affected the development of vocational education and its linkages with industry. Although there have been slight variations in the policies of different government regimes in Australia, the basic tenets of the need for industry and the vocational education sector to collaborate have remained the same.
• Industry bodies in China are generally interested in the welfare of their members, and are focused mainly on the training required by their particular sectors. There is a need to expand their scope of provision, so that the community as a whole can also benefit from industry-specific skills training.
• Australia and China are dependent on political and government interventions, in the form of infrastructure, funding and resources for expanding vocational education and encouraging industry participation in collaborative activities. However, the system of employer incentives for taking on apprentices and trainees is far more developed in Australia than China. The challenge for both countries is to ensure that government intervention enhances rather than hinders the development of industry-vocational education linkages.

When we talk about the linkages between industry and vocational education (VE) in China, or industry and vocational education and training (VET) in Australia, we are referring to activities which are mutually beneficial to all parties involved in the relationship. In this study we describe and compare the establishment, operation and uptake of collaborative activities or linkages between vocational education and training (referred to as VE in China and VET in Australia). We will argue that, in both countries, government has played an important role in driving these linkages. However, the forces and strategies for change at the operational level have been somewhat different.

Similar purposes and considerations

Government policy and economic considerations have been largely responsible for introducing, maintaining or improving VE-industry linkages both in China and Australia. There have also been broadly similar goals for creating these linkages. These relate to ensuring that industry has workers with current skills, knowledge and other attributes.

Although government policy may provide a supportive political environment for these linkages, it is also true for both countries that successful collaboration requires willingness and commitment by local industry bodies and enterprises. It also requires adequate human and financial resources.

Different historical influences

Although the major purposes and intentions of VE-industry linkages are similar in the two countries, there are distinct differences in the ways that each country has approached their development. These differences can best be understood in terms of historical events, and the adoption of different political and economic philosophies.

Although changes of government have also been associated with increased influence for different interest groups in Australia, fundamental aspects of political, social and economic systems in Australia have remained relatively stable. For China, however, changes in government regimes have been associated with changes in the fundamental operation of political, economic and educational systems and structures.

Australia

Historically there has always been a tight connection between industry and vocational education and training. This connection is best demonstrated in the apprenticeship system, where employers sign a contract of training with apprentices, in which they promise to provide paid employment and on-the-job practical training. They also promise to give the apprentice time off during paid work to undertake specific courses, either at a training institution, or at the worksite. The apprenticeship system (for traditional trades) has existed in Australia since colonial times, and dates back to the British system of apprenticeships which was modelled on the craft guilds system of Western Europe.

Recent reforms to the Australian system of vocational education and training (including the apprenticeship system), as well as those which emphasised the importance of increasing VET-industry linkages have been driven by a number of political and economic events. These included the realisation, in the mid-to-late 1980s, that the rate of adoption of innovative technology and work practices had not kept up with international standards and trends. The persistence of skill shortages in certain industries led to concerns about the adequacy of industry participation in skill formation, namely in apprenticeship training, and the training of specialists and technicians. In addition, increasing pressure was being felt in various industry sectors for changes to traditional ways of working, largely because of the extensive and pervasive changes that had also occurred in information technology and telecommunications. Reform was also driven by the rise of service industries and occupations that had hitherto not required formal training or qualifications and were increasingly requesting training and improved remuneration. Although the 1970s had seen increasing rates of school retention to Year 12 and movement into tertiary education, the 1980s and 1990s also witnessed the increased difficulties of young people in the full-time labour market. There was also a realisation that traditional academic pathways were not serving the needs of many young people.

In 1992 the government established the Australian National Training Authority (ANTA) whose role was to 'ensure that the skills of the Australian labour force [were] sufficient to support internationally competitive commerce and industry and to provide individuals with opportunities to maximise their potential' (ANTA 2004). ANTA was given responsibility for establishing an industry-led vocational education and training sector. The ANTA Board was to comprise leaders from industry. In 2004 the chairman was from the chemical manufacturing industry, while other board members were from the engineering, clothing, retail and property management industries, and the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union. Recently the board was also expanded to take into account education and Indigenous representation. ANTA was abolished from 1 July 2005, and its responsibilities taken back into the Department of Employment, Science and Training. However, the industry-led nature of the Australian VET system will continue.

China

Although there has also been a history of linkages between industry and VE in China, this history has been dramatically affected by events which have led to fundamental changes in the political, economic and social structures of Chinese society. The 1949 establishment of the People's Republic of China led to the nationalisation of the economy and highlighted the importance of combining education with productive labour. This initial period of the People's Republic of China emphasised the role of industry in vocational education by allowing schools also to be run by mines, factories, enterprises, railways and agricultural cooperatives. However, the Great Cultural Revolution between 1966-76 largely eliminated the linkages that did exist between industry and VE. Nevertheless, moves to restore the role of industry in education were recommenced in the early 1970s, with the announcement that specialised and skilled worker schools could be once again conducted by factories and mines. When, in the late 1970s and mid-1980s, government focus shifted towards economic reconstruction and the 'open door' policy, VE institutions were restored, and active linkages with industry were once again emphasised. The incorporation of field practice (in Australia often called work placements) in enterprises and the establishment of school-run enterprises were once again considered as essential to ensuring that students developed appropriate industry skills. The establishment of plans for five national specialised teaching groups represented a collaboration between specific industry sectors (architecture and construction, commerce, garment, tourism and electronics industries). The evolution of a market economy and its associated expansion of enterprise ownership created an environment where it was difficult to maintain the traditional boundaries between administrative government departments and other social agencies. Nevertheless, the institution of 33 industry-VE supervision committees confirmed the government's commitment to encouraging industry-VE linkages.

These events culminated in the passing of the Vocational Education Law in 1996, which urged VE institutions to maintain close ties with enterprises so that trainees could acquire necessary practical skills. However, concurrent reforms of state council ministries responsible for industry weakened the ability of these ministries to enforce industry cooperation with VE. Reduced availability of jobs, surplus of job applicants, and the ability of enterprises to recruit directly from the labour markets have also reduced the need for enterprises and industry to maintain close linkages with the VE sector.

Different value systems

There is a higher premium for academic education by comparison with vocational education in both countries. However, due to historical, political and cultural traditions, there has been a higher value placed on vocational pathways (especially trade and technician training) in Australia than has been the case in China. Chinese traditional education historically prized academic scholarship above other forms of training, as it was the main pathway to high government positions. The operation of these value systems have and will continue to affect the willingness of industry to commit themselves to collaborative activities with schools and other vocational education institutions.

Different educational philosophies

In Australia the introduction of competency-based training (CBT) as the main training methodology to be used in VET, and the development of competency standards to guide the assessment of skills required in the workplace have been heavily dependent on increased collaboration from industry. For its part, the VET system has also increased the flexibility of its provision, so that clients (including employers purchasing training for their employees) have more say in how, when and where they do their training. The main focus for VET in Australia has been the acquisition of relevant industry skills and knowledge. Although one of the major objectives for VE in China is that it must provide industry and individuals with relevant skills, there is a greater focus on the all-round education of individuals, so both industry-specific skill and individual talents are developed. There is also an increased focus on ethical behaviour.

Another major difference between the two countries is the involvement in China of teachers and schools in scientific experimentation, and industrial production. Although there are some cases where individual or groups of teachers are involved in commercial consultancies which may involve the development of new products and services for clients, scientific experimentation is not a major role of VE teachers and institutions in Australia. In addition, although school-based entrepreneurial activities (for example, training restaurants, aquaculture farms, vineyards, to name but a few) are also evident in some Australian VET institutions, these activities are not generally major income or profit-producing ventures.

Different concepts of industry involvement

Although the interests of industry organisations and associations in Australia and China lie in the protection of the rights of their members, it is clear that in China another major role is to undertake activities prescribed to them by government. Industry associations and organisations in the Australian context generally operate as free agents. Nevertheless, government has determined that the VET sector is to be an industry-led system. It has amalgamated the former industry training advisory bodies into ten industry organisations (industry skills councils). The role of these councils is to advise government on industry trends and to develop and review the industry competency standards, assessment guidelines and qualifications associated with identified occupations and pathways for their industries. Another way that the Australian Government gets cooperation from industry is to make funding available for the provision of training in the form of incentives for employers who decide to employ apprentices and trainees. Moreover, although industry organisations and associations are not connected to governments, they are also mindful of developing close networks (through lobbying and other activities) with influential bodies to ensure that their industry voice is heard.

Different models of collaboration

Apart from apprenticeships, which are based on a legal contract between employer and apprentices (or their guardians), both industry and VET institutions in Australia are free to develop their own networks and linkages. This flexibility means that there are many different forms of collaboration. They may range from industry providing schools with opportunities for work placements for students and their teachers, to providing industry specialists for teaching and assessment, funding, equipment, materials and venues, that will assist schools to provide relevant training. Alternatively, schools may provide industry with customised training programs for existing workers. A variety of such collaborative activities between industry and schools is also evident in China. However, there are some Chinese collaborative activities that are not observed in Australia. For example, in Australia there is no opportunity for industry to come into schools to participate in management, and there is no tradition of industry evaluating teachers. However, there are opportunities for industry to evaluate their satisfaction with training programs through customer satisfaction feedback surveys conducted by schools, or at the national level through the Survey of Employer Views on Training.

Ensuring that teachers have both industry-specific skills and teaching qualifications has also been important for both countries. Teachers in the secondary school sector in Australia who already have their teaching qualifications must acquire some workplace experience to enable them to conduct some VET courses. For teachers in the post-school sector, the situation is reversed. The systems in all states have concentrated on hiring teachers with industry-specific qualifications and experience to teach courses (especially the case in traditional trade areas). During the last decade such teachers have been expected to undertake teacher-related qualifications and programs.

It is clear that, in Australia and China, effective industry-vocational education linkages have benefits for industry, governments, vocational institutions, and students. They can be useful mechanisms for identifying industry skill needs, and for developing appropriate guidelines and/or materials for the delivery of education, training and assessment to meet these needs. They can enable students and existing workers to develop the skills required to enhance their own fortunes in the labour market and to provide industry with the skills and knowledge required to make it competitive. Such collaborations also make it easier for governments to implement reforms designed to improve economic and educational outcomes, and for industry to fulfil their community responsibilities. The challenge is not to lose sight of the core purposes of business and schools and to develop activities which enable each to fulfil these purposes.

A number of policy issues can be identified from this study. In both countries they relate to having adequate funding and other resources in place to support the establishment and maintenance of these linkages. Most importantly, policies must be based on the accurate identification of industry skill shortages, and suitable training responses.