Before formal schooling, humankind learned by passing on knowledge from generation to generation. Learning was about survival skills. Soon the body of knowledge began to outstrip what a human brain could contain and started getting documented on stones and scrolls. Writing systems developed around 3500 BCE and grouping students together to impart knowledge existed since then in various forms. The primary education system began in 425 CE in the Byzantine empire. Until the 15th-century schools and universities taught arts, law, medicine, and theology. Since the 20th century, the industrial revolution turned education into a system for preparing students for the workforce. Vocational training got embedded into basic learning and the sheepskin effect started to gain precedence over human capital. Today, the demands of the industry are ever changing with the professional degrees not able to catchup to the changes.
The government has stepped in to address the challenges. The AICTE today recognises 1063 institutes under the National Skill Qualification Framework (NSQF). The initial target of training 500 million people by 2022 had to be revised to 300 million by the same year. This is a daunting task with accomplishments in some years (ex 2015) being well short of the target. The government allocated Rs. 12000 crore for 4 years to certify 10 million youths. The Pradhan Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana (PMKVY), is a central scheme which aims to skill 2.4 million people in diverse trades within a year. Technical Education is in the concurrent list. Is this the way to go?
The video above is an interesting take on medical education by Dr Devi Shetty. The story is similar across other fields. Vocational education for specific skills needs to be opened up to many players and allowed to flourish. The diplomas that were valued during the early industralisation have lost favour to professional degree courses due to their signalling potential. In order for vocational training to be valued the industry needs to participate.
The IT industry is a good example. NIIT, Aptech, and others provided industry-specific skills to graduates and undergraduates during the 90's. Even though they were used like a finishing school, the training they provided was valued by the industry. Even today online learning platforms like BYJU, Khan Academy, and others provide a lot of value to students. Recognising online education is important as that would be the preferred medium of the future, providing both flexibility and superior access to content. NSQF should allow non UGC/board certified institutes to get registered as vocational training institutes. This will provide scale and ensure quality. It will also provide data on education, employment statistics and recognise their contribution to the economy.
The unintended consequence of a centralised process would be rent-seeking by entities within the government. This can be quelled by providing self registration without any licensing scheme and a neutral ombudsman for disputes between students and the institute. Another unintended consequence would be vocational training becoming unaffordable where there isn't enough competition. The government can provide vouchers to students deserving of the scholarship and tie up with various foundations which offer such scholarships to the deserving.
Ultimately vocational education depends on the economic vitality and the need in specific industries for labour. It's best that this is sorted out by the industry based on need. The government can develop the human capital in the country by focussing on basic and deeper learning upto class 10 or 12. This will serve to create more value to society than chasing vocational training for industry.