2013 ASTD State of the Industry Report

So as many of you know I am an avid consumer of the ASTD’s yearly State of the industry Report and guess what, the 2013 edition is now available.

So what does it have to save about the world of L&D this year. Well it is interesting, there is not a lot of change from last years report.  We see that spending on L&D globally was about $164.2 Billion with an average direct expenditure per employee of about $1,195.  In terms of Average Direct Expenditure, this represents a very small ($13) increase over last year.

Again however Learning hours used per employee stuck at around the 30 hours mark, 30.3 this years to be exact.  On suggestion for this stalling over the last four years in the increase in usage of non-traditional instructor led training and the more informal, workplace, just in time learning which is much harder to track and quantify.  We also see that Direct expenditure as percentage of payroll rise only slightly to 3.6% as has the Direct expenditure of percentage of revenue rising slightly to 1.32%.

There has also been little or no change in the percentage of expenditure taken up by internal costs which remains steady at 61.5%, lower that 2009 (62.4%) but higher than last year (60.5%).  There has however, been a not insignificant (5%) drop in the number of employees per L&D staff member which now sits at 299:1, there is an even more startling drop of  around 40%, in this number in the ASTD BEST organisations, taking the number there from 288:1 down to 178:1.

The cost of learning has also gone up both in terms of the cost of providing one hour of training to one employee, rising to $89 and the overall cost of developing one hours training rising to  $1,772, a rise of 20% over the last 4 years.  Some reasons suggested for this increase if the up front costs of technology and the reduction in the ratio of employees to L&D staff members.

Managerial and Supervisory training makes up the largest content area for Learning programs, closely followed by mandatory and compliance training, business process and practices, and industry specific training with these four areas taking up just of 40% of all the learning programs delivered.  How these programs were delivered tells what I think is an interesting story however, while yet again, instructor led classroom delivery dropped (5% down to 54.28) and technology based learning rose slightly to 39.20% which is not unexpected.  What I find interesting is that  All Online delivery has remained around the same percentage, (27.29% this year) since 2008.  When you pair this with the fact that instructor lead training (either classroom or online/remote) accounted for some 70% of all training delivered, it seems to suggest, at least in my opinion that participants like to have instructors to interact with even when utilising online training.  The other final thing I find interesting about the content and delivery data is that while there was a big jump in the percentage of hours used in terms of mobile technologies between 2009 and 2010, this usage has flattened out of the last three years remaining at 1.51%

So what does all this data mean?  A couple of comments I would make would be that

  1. Instructor led learning is still the preferred method of delivery for a large amount of participants,
  2. New technologies may have had a quite significant effect on the overall cost of the development of training,
  3. Mobile learning is not the powerhouse, game changing, way of the future that everyone keeps suggesting it is.

I would be interested to know what others think of the data and what it means for the industry.

Can you teach innovation and entrepreneurial skills

So, Can you?

I have read a number of articles recently were Governments, business and various luminaries have suggested that what we need to be doing more of, what we need to be teaching more of is how to be innovative, how to entrepreneurial, however, and this is my sticking point here, can we actually teach these skills or more importantly, if we can teach a set of skills with we deem to be entrepreneurial skills them will that actually make people more entrepreneurial.  Will teaching people ‘innovation’ skills lead to more and greater innovation or more innovators.

My answer – I am really not sure.

 What makes me not sure is something very simple, is there something about, truly great innovators, entrepreneurs, and even leaders that isn’t teachable.  Even if we can distill what makes a true innovator down to a set of definable skills, which we can impart to others, will the people we impart the skills to become truly great innovators or do they need something else.

Not everyone who plays sport (no matter how much they train) will go on to be the best in the world, or even approach being the best in the world, or even their country or state.  Why, well, for a range of reasons, genetics for one, luck, environment, other people, there are a range of reasons.  Do they gain skills and knowledge through the process yes, does that make them an athlete, maybe, does it make them a truly great athlete, probably not.

I have seen lots of people struggle through courses and programs, Leadership, Innovation Entrepreneurship and other such topics, because their employer wanted to them to, they had to have it move forward in their careers, or they had been marketed the hype that these courses would really teach them how to be innovative.  Did it work? In some cases probably, but in a lot of cases, they went back to their roles, they continued their jobs, they did what they were good at, and were successful at it.  They were successful at it because it was what they were good at or what they enjoyed.

Teaching someone entrepreneurial skills, who is really not interested in being entrepreneurial, seems to me, like a lot of these sorts of training to be a real waste of time and resources, and even more so if it turns out that we can’t really teach people how to be entrepreneurial in the first place.

Workforce participation, Training for the long term unemployed and the needs of industry.

I attended a very interesting breakfast earlier in the week, (thanks to the wonderful people at Busy@work)  where the central topic of discussion was around the subject of how to better unemployed and underemployed people with industry needs in order to facilitate meaningful return to employment.  Aside from a range of other issues that were discussed one thing that was raised a number of times was the gap between the skill level of, in particular long-term unemployed, and to be even more particular long-term unemployed youth, and the skill needs of industry and business.

So I got to thinking what are those basic skills that employers, large or small, need job seekers, particularly those coming from medium to long-term unemployment to have, in order for the employer to feel comfortable employing them initially and to retain them.  so I have come up with a list of what I think those really, really basic skills are, so here goes:

  1. Punctuality – The ability to be at work and ready to start work, at the time their day/shift/whatever begins.  I was always taught when I was young and in my first couple of jobs, both when I was at high school and in the workforce, that you should be there 10-15 minutes before your starting time so that you were ready and able to start work on time.
  2. Appropriate clothing and accessory choices – All work places have rules and expectations, some safety related, some organisational and culturally related.  Insisting that you wear a long sleeve shirt,  that your uniform is clean and or ironed, that you removed some of your piercings, are not unreasonable requests.  when I was in the police force in the very early days of my career (it was my first job) our Senior Sargent used to check our uniforms, shoes etc, to make sure that we looked professional and well turned out before we went out in public, representing the organisation.
  3. Basic maths – If you cant figure out that $1.60 is the out of $10.00 when I purchase an $8.40 item, without the use of a cash register or calculator, then you probably shouldn’t be working in a role that requires basic maths, and it shouldn’t be up to an employer to give you training in basic maths.
  4. Basic appropriate communication/language skills – I am not suggesting that new job seekers  or those returning from long-term unemployment need to have the communications skills of senior executive or master facilitator, but they do need to be able to talk to customers, in a polite, respectful, understandable manner.
  5. Basic customer service skills – I don’t care what job you are in, you have customers, they might be internal or external, but you have them, everyone needs to have some level of customer service skills, even if it is don’t swear at the customer when they ask you a question, because it drags you away from your txt/facebook conversation.
  6. Basic understanding of business – Really all I am saying here is understand that a business is not going to change its policy on facial piercing, simply because it is your preference to have a three-inch, pointed, metal stud protruding from the center of your forehead.  It is an understanding that they work for someone else and that working there comes with a set of rules and expectations,both from the business and from the clients of the business.

Now certainly there are going to be roles out there that are appropriate for the groups of people that I am talking about here that require, different or higher levels of skills to the ones listed, but for most entry-level positions, having these six basic skills, place those candidates head and shoulders above all of the others.

How do we give youth, long-term unemployed and other groups, these skills.  Is it something that young people should have been taught at school,  (particularly maths and communications), or come from parents and role models (punctuality and politeness), some of it should and for those that have it, it probably has.  Unfortunately though, for some long-term unemployed, whether they are in the youth demographic or not, even if they did have these skills at some point (and a lot of them probably didn’t), they have dissipated with lack of use over time.

The bigger issue for me, (and this seemed to be a bit of a theme at the breakfast) is how do we teach these people these skills.  In Australia we have government-funded organisations, whose roll it is to assist people with entering or reentering the workforce, particularly those who have been unemployed for a significant period of time, but still we seem to have this situation where candidates turn up for interviews and ongoing employment without even the basic skills i have listed and then we wonder why business and employers either don’ take them on in the first place or only retain them for a short period of time.

I would really like to hear what people think, both about my basics skills list and any ideas about how we might better be able to increase these skills in the people that need them most.

Corporate MOOCs – What’s my incentive?

pauldrasmussen:

A fantastic post by Craig Weiss on the value and problems associated with Corporate MOOC’s. This is well worth spending the time reading and thinking about.

Originally posted on E-Learning 24/7 Blog:

In the past two months, a trend is showing up at am amazing rate – MOOC platforms within a LMS.  For the most part, those that have been adding them, have done so on the education side of the house.  In fact, one vendor offered me an opportunity to create a MOOC and they would stick on their platform – an honor, but not something of interest.

If you think MOOC platforms are just for education – you are in for quite a surprise – they are making an appearance in the corporate platforms too.  A couple of vendors are already in the process of adding them – and if you know this industry – and hopefully you are gaining more knowledge – you would know that the industry screams lemmings – so expect more to come in 2014.  But, I digress.

The question or questions must be why?  Why…

View original 1,574 more words

AHRI – Pulse Learning and Development Report 2013

As most of you know I devour these reports and state of the industry papers about the world of L&D so it was with interest that I read the 2013 release of the Australian Human Resources Institute – Pulse L&D report.

So what are the interesting little highlights I found when I read through the data collected.  Well before I talk about that it is important to note that this survey unlike the 2010 survey was not done in conjunction with the AITD, but was done solely with AHRI members, which may or may not have had an effect on the results.

The first thing I found interesting was in the comments from the AHRI Chairman, where he says ‘it is pleasing to note also that nearly a third of the sample group (31 per cent) report that learning and development budgets account for more than 5 per cent of revenue’  but seemed disappointed that 68% of the organisations surveyed had L&D budgets which were less than 5% of revenue.  I find this statement a little strange and at odds with the general level of L&D investment (as a % of revenue) globally, and this may be a case of simple misunderstanding of the wider global L&D community trends.  I say this because in the 2012 ASTD State of the Industry report the average figure for direct expenditure as a percentage of revenue is around the 1.2%, with most Global Fortune 500 companies averaging around 0.7% of revenue.  Now while it is true these levels globally are rising, it would be difficult to suggest they would top 5% of revenue anytime in the next few years at least, which to me says that investment in Australia in L&D is in very very good shape, when we compare it globally and to intimate that budgets of less than 5% of revenue are disappointing, is a little bit strange.

Still as always the vast majority of people in the industry are female (70%), though I would really like to see a survey done in the Australian market that look at gender across roles within the industry as I think, particularly if we think about senior management and executive learning roles these figures may not be giving us the full picture.   If anyone knows of a survey like this, particularly one with data collected from organisations with a range of L&D functions I would be interested to know about it.

Again as we tend to always see in these surveys, most L&D functions sit either solely with HR or within HR and externally to it, with only 11% sitting outside of HR as a separate function.  Now as we know where Learning should sit has been a topic of debate for a long time now, but in reality it seems nothing much has actually changed.  The other thing that interested me on this page of the report was the size of L&D team with more than 75% of learning functions only having between 1-5 staff.  Now I am sure that this has something to do with the fact that 60% of the respondents worked for companies with less that 500 staff and 80% for companies with less than 2500 staff.  I also think and this is just personal opinion here, that it has a lot to do with the Learning function sitting inside HR, and to some extend being treated as a poor cousin to other HR functions, and a misunderstanding of the value both in people and monetary terms of a well-funded, highly functioning Learning unit, but then again I am a L&D person I would say that.

Some of the really interesting information for me starts on page 11 of the report were it begins to look at the mix of L&D activities with organisations.

The vast majority of L&D activities within organisations turn out to be….. wait for it……Internal face to face training, Well who would have thought that.  Certainly not anyone who had been to any of the major conference recently where it almost seemed that if you talked about-face to face training and not, informal MOOC’s than you were a dinosaur, who needed to move out of the way.  In fact this idea is only further supported on page 12 where we see that only 8% of the Learning Activities provided by organisations are e-learning based, with the two largest percentages being in-house training and inductions. (Sorry had to say that, it is just nice to see some real figures that point to the fact that online learning in not taking over the world at least not inside organisations.  The other two really interesting bits of information from this were that the split between formal and informal learning was about even with informal a little bit ahead, nowhere near the 90:10 split we would expect to see under some models of informal learning and the in terms of kinds of training compliance and other training were split about 50:50 as well.

So what then do people think are the most and least valuable learning and development activities, well the most valuable are clearly induction of new staff and leadership training (though I am unsure of the real value of leadership training myself), closely followed by training relating to in-house operations, (surprising all the stuff that organisations need their staff to know), with the least valuable (as I have always suspected to be the case) Team building activities followed by compliance training.

So there you have it, nothing stunning, but some facts which I think tend to shed some light on some of the rhetoric of learning pundits and evangelists out there.

As always if you have any thoughts of comments I am more than happy to hear them.

 

 

Evaluating informal learning – some more thoughts

Yesterday I started talking about how we might look at evaluating informal learning and I suggested that there were a number of steps or processes we might need to implement if we really wanted to look seriously at getting meaningful metrics out of the informal learning that was occurring within our workforce.  I suggested the following list of steps which might make up the process of evaluation;

  1. Skills Outline for each role type within the organisation,
  2. Assessment of Staff member against skills outline – there are a range of options here, but I think there has to be at least self-assessment + manager assessment at the very least,
  3. System for capturing staff informal learning activities,
  4. Regular (6-12 Month) updates of Staff skill assessments,
  5. Data capture of changes in skills levels across the organisation,
  6. Method of mapping skills changes to competencies. and
  7. Methodology of converting skills changes to organisational metrics and ROI.

Today I want to look at some of the options and some other ideas around some of the items on this list.    I think there are a number of key issues here, firstly, the issue of establishing a baseline skill level, the issue of measuring changes from that baseline and finally the issue of taking the data relating to those changes either at an individual level or at an organisational level and translating them into something meaningful.  I think that, as I said yesterday, there are a number of ways in which that initial baseline data can be captured, however the more I think about it the more it becomes clear to me that there is a definite need to have robust skill groups determined for each role type within an organisation.  These skill groups are entirely separate to any particular position description and are tied to role types and levels rather than to specific staff or positions.  Now to what level of granularity an organisation is going to need to go to is going to have to be determined by each organisation.  My thinking however is that for most organisations there would be general role types to which skill groups could be attached.  The skills contained in these skill groups would also have some similarity through the hierarchy of the organisation, everyone in the organisation needs to be able to communicate, but the level of skill expected may well be different.

Once we have the skill groups and have assessed staff members against their relative group (through whatever method we choose), we then need to come up with a method or a process of regularly assessing individual’s fluctuations in the skills within their skill group.  Again it is going to be up to an individual organisation how robust they make these assessments, at the lowest end would sit, I think, a 6-12 month self-assessment by staff of where there skills now sit.  At the highest end would be some form of regular, controlled, formalised testing process which provided solid evidence in relation to changes in key skills.  If we were thinking about say desktop applications such as Word, staff members could at set time intervals be required to undergo a standardised external test of their skills and knowledge, which should give solid, meaningful data on changes to skill levels.

At some point however, we are going to have to decide what this data means either on an individual level, an organisational level or both.  It is here, I think, that the real challenge may lie.  If we look at the following example; an organisation has been capturing data on its staff skill levels across, they have also been providing staff with access to and encouragement to utilise and learn through informal methods.  After 12 months they see an average rise in skill levels across the organisation of 5% and over the same period a rise in sales of 3%.  Can we make a connection between the two, is there any correlation between the increases.

At least at this point I think you would be hard pressed to make much out of it.  It may even be difficult to make the correlation between the informal learning and the rise in skill levels, why?  Well simply because unless all they have been doing is engaging in informal learning and there has been no formal activities, or coaching and mentoring, supervision etc., then we are going to need to come up with a process of separating out the gains make from formal learning and the gains made from informal learning.  At this point we might be tempted to fall back on something like 70:20:10 and say something like, well 70% of learning is informal so 70% of the skills increase is due to informal learning, namely a 3.5% increase.  I that I would and I think that a lot of other people would find an argument like that to be somewhat less than satisfying.  It could be the case that it was the 10% formal learning component that produced the entire 5% rise in skill and informal learning did not contribute to the skills increase at all.

Even if we can make a strong case that informal learning contributed to the skills increase, we then still have to make the case that the skills increase contributed to the sales increase and unless we can show a link between the learning, the skills and the increase in sales that is going to be difficult.  Here I think it is the level of granularity that we apply to the data we are collecting.  If we can show that members of the sales department accessed a range of informal learning resources all related to closing sales, and that their skill level at closing sales went up (by whatever means of assessment we are using) and then the overall sales figures for that sales department increased, then I think we might have a strong enough case to suggest that the informal learning the staff did, had a correlative effect on the sales figures.

Evaluating Informal Learning

As some of you know the problems associated with capturing the organisational impact and increases in competency (if any) gained by staff through their informal learning has occupied my thinking for some time now, and I have posted and spoke about it on a number of different occasions.   I really got to thinking about it again after the recent learnX conference, particularly after some stimulating conversations with Con and Saul amongst others.    The problem for me is that even if you don’t believe the numbers  in 70:20:10 (which I don’t)  there is still a lot of informal learning that happens in a person’s life and at least some of that learning has to relate to their job roles.  Just before I go on however,  I want to set some shall we say boundary conditions to what I am talking about here and that is informal learning that has some impact on the day-to-day operation of the organisation.  If you choose to go off in your own time and as one of my colleagues loves to call  it, study underwater basket weaving, I am really not interested in the fact that you have done that, unless you can show be some tangible link to your day-to-day work.

So for me there are two types of organisational informal learning, that learning that simply increases, builds or improves a skill and that learning that does that and in addition provides some ‘formal’ recognition pathway for the learner.  When I think about this however it is more  the job role or the organisational imperative that moves us towards the path of recognition rather than in general the needs of the staff member.  Again however,  when I am talking about recognition I am talking about formal recognition, where there is some ‘qualification’ style outcome as a result of the learning, usually in an Australian sense a Unit of competency for example.  I am not talking about badges and other like devices to capture learning, be they peer-reviewed or whatever, for from an organisational point of view they in my opinion are (at least currently) meaningless.

Why do I say this; I have often recounted a story of being asked as part of a formal investigation into an incident involving a member of staff, “how did you know this person was competent?”  Now if my answer had been, well he has a badge for it, I think I may have gotten a much different reaction to saying, as I did, “Well, they have completed all of the assessment tasks, including a third-party observation, necessary for us to be satisfied that they were competent under the rules of evidence set out in the legislation pertaining to the operations of Registered Training Organisations.”

Not all informal learning though is going to lead a staff member to a qualification however, some of it is not related to or captured by the range of qualification available, some simply adds to the skill set they already have, making them better at their role, but not providing them with a new skill. So for me there are a number things that we need to know in order to be able to begin to evaluate informal learning, and I am indebted to Saul Carliner for some of his thinking around this;

  1. A baseline – what is the staff members current skill level,
  2. What they have learned,
  3. How they have learned it,
  4. New skill level,
  5. Is there a competency attachable to the learning,
  6. Effect of learning on organisational metrics – reduction in customer complaints, less injuries etc, and maybe
  7. Return on Investment?

Now you might look at that list and say well isn’t that what we would want from any kind of organisational learning process, and in fact is not exactly the kinds of data that we want from our formal processes.  I don’t see why we should be treating the outcomes of informal learning differently to how we would treat formal learning.  Now it may not be relevant, we may not or able to or we may not want to, capture the standard ‘smile’ sheet satisfaction style data that we collect from formal training and yes, the natural of the learning, pull not push, driven by the individual, just in time etc, all make the nature of the process of learning different.  However, when we look at it from an organisational point of view aren’t we not looking for the same thing as with formal learning.  We are looking for an increase in the skill level of the staff member, such that increase in skill will have an effect on the relevant workforce metrics that relate to their role in the organisation.  If we aren’t looking to improve the skills of our staff and the organisation as a whole, what are we investing in informal learning systems in the workplace, and why has it become so important.

So what are some ways in which we can achieve this?  If we start with the idea of a baseline we might be able to sort out some structure and processes around this idea.  So, where might a baseline come from;

  • Position Description,
  • Performance and Professional development plans,
  • Self Assessment,
  • Formalised Assessment, or
  • Job skills analysis plus a rating system.

There are a range of ways in which we can establish this baseline, but how can we do it without it being onerous on everyone involved.  If we use position descriptions as our starting point, we have the problem of there not being enough detail or they are not skills based or we don’t assess the person against them in a really formal way, that gives us any real data to work with in the first place.  They could be coupled with self assessment, and direct manager assessment to give a fuller picture of the skill set and levels of an individual staff member.  PPD plans can be seen in the same light, in order to make them more useful in terms of presenting us with a baseline we need to capture more granular detail about the role and the staff members skills relating to that role.

So I have a bit of a rough process around my thinking in relation to this and it goes something like this;

  1. Skills Outline for each role type within the organisation,
  2. Assessment of Staff member against skills outline – there are a range of options here, but I think there has to be at least self assessment + manager assessment at the very least,
  3. System for capturing staff informal learning activities,
  4. Regular (6-12 Month) updates of Staff skill assessments,
  5. Data capture of changes in skills levels across the organisation,
  6. Method of mapping skills changes to competencies. and
  7. Methodology of converting skills changes to organisational metrics and ROI.

So as I said that is my thinking currently, I would be really interested in getting everyone’s feedback on what they think, so feel free to chime in and let me know what you think.

Has L&D become its own worst enemy?

I was reading Ryan’s blog post on Face time in online learning, this morning and it got me thinking about how sometimes I feel that as L&D professionals we have shot ourselves in foot so to speak in terms of our relevance to organisations.

I was responding to a comment from Con, about the fact that often organisation and management balk at the costs associated with face to face delivery or having an informal meetup of participants and i started to think that perhaps in our rush to embrace and to ‘sell’ online learning to the business, a lot of time on the grounds that it is more cost-effective than face-to-face delivery, that we may have made a rod for our own backs when we wanted or needed to include face-to=face components.

It goes a little deeper than that however, and I think back to LearnX and some of the conversations I had there and a particular presentation by Saul Carliner when he said 70:20:10 is not an investment strategy. (as most of you know I am not a 70:20:10 believer, there is no rigorous evidence to back up the numbers.  Yes a lot of learning is informal but putting numbers around it when there is nothing by anecdotal evidence to substantiate it casts us all in a bad light.)  Even though it isn’t an investment strategy it is often ‘sold’ that way, even if the selling of it is unintentional.  If you talk to the business about 70% of all workplace learning being informal and that we need to invest in technology to ensure our staff access to this avenue of learning. promote it, link it to our talent management and retention and development strategies then it starts to sound like it is an investment strategy.  The problem is that I am not sure I know too many organisations who are going to increase their learning budgets by 70% to incorporate informal learning, in fact i think it is probably going to come from the L&D budgets that are already there, which will have an impact of course on our ability to delivery the formal training that the organisation needs.

Hmm, perhaps if we move all of that formal training online and not worry about face-to-face then we can free up budgets to increase our staffs access to informal learning, and there we have it we have shot ourselves in the foot again.

I see it everywhere the more I think about it, formal qualifications through the VET sector are devalued because we chase funding for their delivery to make them free or heavily subsidised for staff and the organisation and then when the organisation wants to have staff do a qualification that is not funded they choke when they see the price tag.  Other training reduced to online only because of the cost savings associated with delivery, (and don’t get me wrong online delivery can certainly be a huge cost saving) where having even a half day of face-to-face time would greatly improve the outcomes for staff and the organisation.

Now I am not suggestion that everything go back to face-to-face and L&D should get massive increases in budgets (although that would be nice wouldn’t it) what I am saying is that if we spend all of our time talking about the next big thing, the new way of learning.  If all we talk about is how cost-effective online delivery is and how informal learning is the way of the future, can we really than be surprised when the business turns back to us and replaces the L&D unit with free mooc’s from the cheapest provider.

Accountability, Innovation, Agility and the skills Gap

So yesterday I went to a fantastic presentation from Denise Myerson and the MCI Team including the wonderful Natasha Wright about their recent

trip to the recent SHRM Conference in the US and the themes and trends that came out of it.  The four major themes (see the title of this blog post) were

  1. Accountability
  2. Innovation
  3. Agility
  4. Skills Gap

Now what I found really interesting about the afternoon was the fact that these four issues or challenges if you will resonate quite strongly both personally and organisationally, in particularly agility and the skills gaps.  When I look at the way the landscape has changed over the last few years, in the not-for-profit and government sectors, in Learning and Development and HR and in the business world in general, Accountability and the ability to respond in an Agile manner to the myriad of challenges which face us every day do call for innovative solutions.  The real problem I see is the skills gap, when I look at the health and community services sector, the mining and industry sectors we are all crying out for staff who have the right skills, attributes and behaviours to meet the needs of industry, particularly at entry level positions, and in highly technical areas.

We seem to have a situation at least in my opinion where we have plenty of  people who skills that are not relevant to the needs of industry, who aren’t interested in entry level positions, who are unwilling to do something that is outside of their vocation or to be retrained and we seem to pander to these attitudes.   If we don’t find ways to address the skills gap, if we don’t have people with the right skills and behaviours in the right roles then how can we possibly hope to respond in Accountable, innovative and agile ways to the next challenge that comes along.

Primary, Secondary, Tertiary and VET education

Is Education Snobbery still alive and well in Australia?

As some of you might know one of my first posts on this blog was about Academic snobbery and the perceived value of VET qualifications, where I talked about the ‘I have a degree, why would I want a workplace (VET) qualification?’ and what it said about the perception of the value of VET sector qualifications.

This whole idea of the VET and organisational learning sectors, not being as professional, rigorous, or just plain good, as the ‘Teaching and Academic sectors’ has risen up in a number of conversations I have had with people recently.  This time however it has been the ‘But that just training’ or ‘They are just a trainer, I’m a teacher/lecturer’  commentary.  What I find really interesting about this is that I almost never here this language from people in the organisational learning and VET sectors only from those in the teaching and university sectors.  The other thing that I find interesting is this (and I am going to generalise here so beware);

Teachers are experts in practice of teaching, they are not for the most part subject matter experts;

Lecturers and Academics are subject matter experts, and not for the most part experts in the practice of teaching;

VET and organisation learning practitioners are expected to be both, they must have subject matter knowledge and expertise and they must hold training qualifications.

Now don’t get me wrong here, I am not saying that practitioners in the VET and organisational learning sector are better or more qualified than those in other sectors.   I have known over the years outstanding teacher, lecturers and trainers, I have also known some, in all three sectors, that were downright awful and made me wonder how they managed to continue to be employed.

So  lets stop this petty bickering about who or what sector is best, applaud great talent where we find it and work together to ensure that the people we educate get the best outcomes they can regardless of the sector they are in.

Learning to Fly

Musings from an HR practitioner working things out as she goes along.

NIIT Managed Training Services

Helping Clients Run Training like a Business

Effective Intercultural Business

Learning from each other, leveraging the differences, doing better business.

It's time to tell a story...

Alex Holderness for IQPC

Total Learning

Ideas on training and development for businesses

kotch2010

Just another WordPress.com site

E-Learning 24/7 Blog

The Truth and Realities of E-Learning

Thoughts on management

Management now and tomorrow

Saul Carliner

Linking to My Many Sites

E-Learning Provocateur

A blog by Ryan Tracey

Legal Resources for RTOs

VET Regulation under ASQA

Learning Snippets

A diary of sorts about what I'm learning about learning

Activate Learning Solutions

Learning Solutions that Activate Performance in Your Company

Skynet Education

HELP & SUPPORT FOR RTOS | EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATIONAL SERVICE & PRODUCTS

taranevenmrt

Individual and Organisational Collective Leadership

L&Dtrendcather's Blog

Learning & Development Ideas & Itch

Flirting w/ eLearning

Blogging about instructional design, eLearning, graphic design and more.

Intlcultural Mind & Body

:: a place to heal yourself and explore your authentic self ::

Halls are made for Madness

Optimistic reflections on organisational life

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 105 other followers