Transcript Slide 1

‘THE NATIONAL CUSTODIAN’:
HOW INTEREST GROUPS AND ACADEMICS
TRY TO STOP WORKING PEOPLE GET
QUALIFICATIONS
Erica Smith, University of Ballarat
[email protected]
WHAT’S THIS PAPER ABOUT?
Struggles over access to qualifications and
funding via the apprenticeship system
 Within VET not between VET and Higher
Education

APPRENTICESHIPS: A CONTESTED
GROUND

‘Undemocratic in its scope, unscientific in its educational
methods, and fundamentally unsound in its financial
aspects, the apprenticeship system, in spite of all the
practical arguments, in its favour, is not likely to be
deliberately revived by a modern democracy’
Sidney & Beatrice Webb 1897
‘Industrial democracy’ Vol II
Thanks to Ian Laurie, Uni of Southampton for rediscovering this
quote
… WHAT’S NEW?
An 18th century tale of attrition and non-retention
Captain James Cook
APPRENTICESHIP NO. 1: RETAIL (STAITHES)
APPRENTICESHIP NO. 2: MERCHANT
SHIP (WHITBY)
THE POST-TRADE JOB: ROYAL NAVY
THE CURRENT STATE OF PLAY IN
AUSTRALIA







1985 the Kirby Report introduced traineeships in newer
industry areas and service industries. Usually 12 months
rather than 3 or 4 years;
In the1990s rules were relaxed to allow part-time
workers and older workers to participate;
NETTFORCE in 1995 to speed traineeship approvals;
Part-time secondary school based participation;
Funding for employers for employment of apprentices &
trainees,
Funding for formal training (‘user choice’) to training
providers;
Private training providers (RTOs) eligible for funding
TROUBLE BREWING
 As
money got tighter, debates began about
who should access funding;
 Early days of traineeship produced
examples of poor quality training for some
industry sectors;
 Some academics started flexing their
muscles: ‘the jobs in your industry
(hospitality) are not skilled’; ‘training
reform set out to destroy occupations’
AUSTRALIA: THE SO-CALLED EXPERT
PANEL
2010-11 Apprenticeships for the 21st (or was it
19th?) century?
 Hidden proposal to defund most traineeships (the
notorious pages 56-58)
 Only ‘eligible’ apprentices and trainees could be
funded: those on Skills Australia specialised
occupations list; ‘valued career’; ‘can be traded in
the marketplace’ (talk about social construction!)

WHO WAS TO DECIDE? THE NATIONAL
CUSTODIAN
THE OUTCOME
In the end , not much so far except that Certificate II
traineeships have lost funding;
 Recognition that the panel was not expert and taken
only from manufacturing and construction industries
and those friendly to that industry reduced credibility;
 Minister Evans distanced himself from the report;
 But…. Some evidence that employers have reduced
traineeships, and a recent rise in youth unemployment
may be linked.

THE UK IN 2011: ‘THEY’RE ONLY IN IT
FOR THE MONEY’
 Snobbery
of academics about the retail
industry at the JVET conference.
 Opposition to ‘conversions’ from
academics – a ‘long-standing problem’.
 The ‘scandalous’ case of Morrisons supermarkets (many apprentices are matureaged & existing workers)- The Guardian
newspaper.
 Misinformation about McDonalds and
government funding.
SO WHAT’S THIS ALL ABOUT?
 On
the one hand: ‘Just a way for
governments to claim higher numbers of
qualified workers to claim higher numbers
of qualified workers.. (for the)
international league tables’ (academics)
 On the other hand: ‘The issue I’m trying
to address is of social exclusion and people
trapped in unemployment or entry level
jobs with no hope of progressing’
(Morrison’s manager)
IS IT JUST ABOUT SOME WORKERS CLAWING
THEIR WAY UP AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS?
WHY ARE ACADEMICS JOINING IN THE
SUPPRESSION OF WORKERS?
WHERE IS IT COMING FROM?
‘Cynical interpretations’ – Vince Cable, UK
minister;
 Firm tenets about ‘what apprenticeships are for’
– and yet it’s clear from the work of INAP that
apprenticeship systems vary greatly;
 A Marxist view that employers are out to extract
surplus value? (but only some employers);
 Platonic roots in what is a ‘valued career’ – ‘homo
faber’ is higher up than ‘animal laborans’
(Arendt, 1958) - moral judgements

AS LIEPMANN PUT IT IN IN 1960

‘The national interest would be best served if
apprenticeship were divested entirely of the
function of preserving obsolete and restrictive
occupational barriers in industry, and became a
social institution dealing solely with education
and industrial training and extended to the
whole working population’