Workshop Skills for Poverty Reduction

Project “Skills for Poverty Reduction”
Kochkor, 18-19/05/2007
Eduarda Castel-Branco
Objectives workshop
Preliminary results and lessons of each pilot
project – the core substance for reflection
Policy debate - in view of the action policy
learning purpose of the SDPR
Project planning: fine-tuning – to improve things
and get closer to effectiveness (reach
Objectives and key issues of workshop
Objectives workshop - remarks
Not a competition between pilot projects – they are all
different and have very good and less good things to share
Not a discussion to criticise policies and politics, but to share
and exchange; analyse and reflect; make proposals (even if
only embryos) that feed the action policy learning purpose of
the project.
If possible: no personal attacks and thus no need for
justifications to save the face…
This is a learning project for all involved parties: ETF,
national policy makers, involved schools and partnerships
and eventually other outside parts
We look forward to suggestions and conceptual contributions
from all invited guests (not involved in the SDPR – yet…)
Key issues workshop (1)
Exchange between pilot schools and coaches on preliminary
findings / results, as well as used approaches / methods in all
SDPR pilot projects
Debate with policy makers, partners and with other providers of
skills and information in rural areas: key lessons that can be
translated in policy; proposals on how to ensure sustainability of
the pilot project; how to enhance the partnership and its role.
Needed improvements: identification of main risks and difficulties
affecting implementation; analysis of weak points and areas in the
activity of the pilot project; proposals
SDPR publication: Volumes I and II; role and scope; discussion
on objectives, indicative structure, content lines; inputs from
various players; milestones. Possible problems.
Next steps, activities of the SDPR: a) pilot project and b) overall
SDPR. Questions and replies, proposals.
Sensitive issues workshop (2)
 “Policy and system”: the interactions
 Is the system rather receptive or rather resistant to new policies?
 What makes systems more or less resistant to innovation / new
How can practitioners contribute to better and more effective /
efficient policy implementation?
What makes policies more and better implementable (accepted
by the system)?
How can policy makers be closer to realities?
 Policy monitoring
 Can policies be counterproductive despite their good intentions?
 Are institutions and policy making “focal points” ready for
monitoring and accountability?
 Action – analysis and reflection – feedback – policy - action
Workshop will need
 Your active and constructive participation
 Good understanding of the SDPR purpose and role of
pilot projects
 Good questions
 Ambition
 Openness of ETF to new challenges of the SDPR
Skills for Poverty Reduction
 This is NOT!!!
Direct, unique and quick-effect causal relationship, therefore it
requires cross-sector Policy; openess of the E & T system to
innovation, partnerships with new players, funding from other
sources, self-assessment and a lot of motivators for all parties
reduction of poverty (not true!!!!)
 “SKILLS” is not:
 Technical, narrow, strictly occupational
 Results only
 IT IS:
 Process and results (SKILLS DEVELOPMENT)
 Wide “Skills”: social, core, professional
 “Developing” skills: LLL
Skills development and poverty reduction: issues
In CIS: not lack of formal education (basic and secondary)!
Some of the problems:
Mix of skills for work: obsolescence is recognised; but there is poor
access to relevant training where needed
Insufficient coherence of Local + national, civic + governmental
strategies / programmes
Lack of strategic articulation and intersector co-operation at local level
Fragmentation of diverse and multiple initiatives
Insufficient cross-fertilisation of learning methods / contents of Formal
and Non-formal / Informal Education and Training
Insufficient sustainable development of learning methods, structures
and contents of non-formal training (for adults with various needs)
Low involvement of the target groups (poor, vulnerable groups) in
design / monitoring of training programmes
Inadequate policy focus and funding on training of low skilled / poor
Training for work – not a task of education sector / or of VET subsector alone! All E & T potential needed
Skills for Poverty Reduction Project
 SDPR: not a large donor project for development of VET
 Aim is not to train 50 or 100 persons of the target group – this
is a result, a means, a seed
 Small dimension of ETF funding – not commensurate to the
usefulness of the 3 pilot projects:
Learning rather than mainstreaming - yet
Pilot partnerships have a potential that largely exceeds the small
funding from ETF (resources, policy support, knowledge local
needs, strive for results for own project)
ETF will share its expertise with pilot VET schools / pilot projects
to enhance the existing capacity at partnership level
ETF is: coach, resource, catalyst, player – not the owner of the
Involved parts of SDPR
Policy makers:
MoE, MoL,
Government …
Pilot partnership
Pilot skills development
Project (VET
representative Ministry)
Involved parts
 VET schools
 Coaches
 Partnership management team
 Partners
 Policy makers
 Local authorities
 Peer reviewers
 ETF team
 Others...
Some very preliminary findings
Variety of the ongoing pilot projects
 Kyrgyzstan
Do new things…
In a different manner more adapted for target group (mobile training,
inputs trainees…) even when demanding for trainers and school
Using good prior experience and capacity (trainers, manuals, needs
Permanent involvement local authorities
 Kazakhstan
Reflect on those things that are being done already by school (in
particular training for unemployed of various categories)
Try to use feed back from reflection to improve certain aspects of normal
activity with adults and even possibly on mainstream formal VET
programmes (changes in curriculum, training methods, place of
Try to insert some changes at school level (more debate with
Try to introduce more debate among staff, teachers
Reflection on what needs to be changed further in training approach
 Initial pilot project planning vs actual pilot project activities
 Target group vs selected participants (“beneficiaries”)
 Training – trainees – community: roles and interactions
 Partnership: a key challenge for the VET school /pilot?
How to make it more vibrant? What are the sources of
 Policy makers: effective involvement and interest
 “Poverty reduction” in the horizon of the project parties:
how to maintain the cap and focus; how to formulate the
issue in a less negative wording (“poverty”…); how to
enrich the definition of “poverty reduction” in relationship
with skills development (and vice-versa)
 The ongoing pilot projects of the SDPR: are they relevant
as a whole as parts of the SDPR? Cases
What is new?
What do they bring to the VET school development? And to the
skills wealth of the community? Other?
What is their policy learning POTENTIAL for each country, and as
a whole for SDPR?
Do they have the needed mechanisms to allow and foster selfassessment, knowledge management, sharing and exchange with
other schools and centres
Do they have a proper balance of short-term action with more
medium-term reflection?
 VET school: capacity of management and key staff
Dynamism: interest, get best contribution of pilot for VET school
Management skills: plan, act, monitor, self-assessment, proper spending,
discuss and get suggestions, balance trade-offs…
Readiness to learn and to change
Results orientation: various paths; measure and be accountable
Motivate and reward (school staff, teachers and trainers…)
 Training (learning): approach, methods and structures
Students centered
Participative, interactive
Open training structures: use of outsiders’ competencies, partnerships
with other schools and training centres…
Quality, quality, quality
 Trainers and teachers
 Professionalism
 Motivation
 Creativity
 Openness to new
 Use of prior experience and knowledge
 In particular: results of other projects and exchanges with
international partners
 Manuals, training supports
 Knowledge from this pilot: management, sharing, use and further
development (training methods, curriculum development
approach, trainers, coaches, role of trainees, methodologies)
Partnership: enhance it; how? What other partners and how to
attract and motivate them? How to overcome the barriers of
institutional protectiveness (envy)?
Dissemination: among peers institutions, NGOs, local authorities,
rural extension agencies; what to disseminate? Is it good enough
for others?
Mainstreaming: policy makers are welcome here!
Resources, funding: cannot be state-only based; Community as a
whole has resources (is richer than the state…)
Some problem areas
 Additional workload for VET school or a great self
learning opportunity?
Constructive interaction of pilot and mainstream activity of
the VET school
Partnership: traditional linkages instead of more
Coaches role and inputs: foster better use of school
capacity, promote change, remind pilot project policy
VET school management: culture, interest, capacity,
ambition and consistency. Director’s role and place vs
more participation and debate of staff
Why partnerships?
 Pool together resources, experience and social-political
capacity (roles), which can be used effectively to address
the identified problems / objectives set
A feasible solution to fragmentation of many varied
actions at a local level, overcome institutional barriers
Reach a critical mass able to overcome the weaknesses
of working alone
Create communication and exchanges among partners
Discover each other
Reach out larger and more varied audience
Why partnerships (2) in the SDPR
 To get direct and effective support from:
Policy makers
Local authorities
Rural extension agencies
NGOs and other projects, associations
 To facilitate exchanges bottom-up and top-down
 To enhance a culture of networking in more strategic and systematic
way with relevant players of the local environment
 Embryos of permanent local training partnerships that have a role in
socio-economic development (SUSTAINABILITY)
Why are VET schools alone reaching out less
than requires poverty reduction strategy?
Tools of state policy
Not adequate (know-how,
resources, rigidity in training)
Heavy management
Not interested in social
development and related skills
Own behaviour
Formal education, youngsters poorly adapted for non-formal
Training and adults
Insufficient management
autonomy-lack of incentives to
really do new (extra-budget funds)
Mistrust towards other new forms
of training and providers
Fear of additional workload for
teachers / schools
Some “fatalism”, closed attitude
Partnerships can help (some players...)
VET Schools:
E&T know-how
Professional skills training
Curricula, training premises
Occupational standards
Catalysts social develop.
Innovative training methods
Social skills
Networking, donors
Project design and monitoring
Independence from state
Training needs
Places practical learning
Sub-contracting (self-employed)
Retraining staff in VET schools
Local governance bodies
- Political support (not interference...)
- HRD / SD - part of local
development programmes / funding
- Better local governance, awareness
- Intersector co-ordination
- Visibility of good initiatives
Partnerships may have varied formats
 Temporary co-operation around one project
 More strategic co-operation around objectives linked with
socio-economic development of the region / community
 Core group of partners + temporary association of other
members for specific activities / reasons
 Legal entity with charter, strategic plan and funding
 Association that represents a certain group of interests
and is acknowledged by authorities…
 Old, historical partnership
 Newly born partnership to face new challenges
SDPR publication
 Active participation of all key SDPR actors
 Motivator for all actors (visibility)
 Manage knowledge
 Disseminate
 Tools for action policy learning
 Stories
 Key processed results of peer reviews
 Articles (coaches, VET schools, ETF…)
 Proposals for Policy:
 General E & T
 Thematic
 Institutional
 Design, formulation, implementation and monitoring
 Policy and system
 2007:
 Plan, propose various contributors, define overall roles and
responsibilities, communication and review guidelines,
 Define forms and methods to gather information and exchange it
 Collect and process basic information from all pilots and SDPR
 Discuss preliminary material with policy makers in final events
 Propose themes, titles, guidelines for articles – defined in SDPR
final reports and approved ETF
 2008:
 Drafts
 Review
 Final drafts
Policy learning
Policy learning
 Fragmented actions and initiatives yield experience,
suggest what to do and what to avoid
But are lessons learned out of these experiences,
projects, investments in HRD, out of VET reforms ongoing
for years?
Is policy implementation monitored?
Is challenging daily work in Ministries combined with
analysis of reforms and policies with participation of
Are lessons used in further policy making?
Policy learning
 Lessons from practice
 Analyse and use lessons
 Monitor
 Accountability
 Sharing good practice
 Encouragement
 Bottom-up and top-bottom exchange
 Participation of civil and public entities
 Policy learns in continuity (even buildings learn…)
Policy learning
 Concerns:
 Ministries and Government,
 Parliament
 Public education practitioners (schools…)
 Wider public (users of education and training)
 Enterprises
 Analysts …
From pilot to policy
 Monitoring
 Coaches
 Field visits
 Peer visits and discussion
 Better use of
SDPR website
 Analyse experiences
in joint discussion
- Dissemination of
- Project publication
- Involvement of policy
makers as policy learners
- Report to stakeholders
- Recommendations ETF
/ EC regarding future
projects in new
Ex.: Some possible policy questions on Skills
and poverty reduction (1)
 What skills?
Technical-professional above all?
General, core, social?
What combination and weigth of professional vs core and social? Of
theorethical and general vs applied knowledge?
Content of training and METHODS / approaches of training are not
separated (“problem solving” – in application, not theory)
 How to ascertain impact of training on community and group livelihoods,
self-help, economic empowerment, social development?
What adequate LLL in context of empoverishment + scarce state funds?
Change attitude of state (MoE) towards innovation, new providers,
partnerships, “education (not) for education”, school autonomy?
Accountability: culture and mechanisms?
Role and place of target groups (socio-economic vulnerable)
Impact on reform of the above on E & T system?
Ex.: Some possible policy questions on Skills and
poverty reduction (2)
 Role of KSC (Knowledge, Skills and Competences) in the economy with
increasing knowledge capital
 Low skills deter economic growth
 Educational attainment and skills level are only moderately correlated
 High skills do not seem to affect growth, but high percentages of
people with low level of skills tend to retard growth. Effectively the low
skills seem to inhibit rates of technological adaptation and innovation.
 There should be policy focus on the people with the lowest skills as
they are holding the economic development back.
 People lose skills over time. This is not really surprising given
societal, technological and organisational changes; but it happens at
a rate that offsets the overall rise in educational quality seen over the
last decades. The situation would be even worse if there had been no
rise in educational quality.
 KSC or KSCA (Attitudes)...
Skills for Poverty Reduction Project
Learning is the core of SDPR
узнать и делать
новое – поновому
Наставник (encourage…)
 Наставник – это человек, который поддерживает и
направляет другого человека посредством
поощрения и задавания вопросов.
 Они помогают клиента находить их собственные
решения с помощью задаваемых вопросов, которые
дают им возможность проникновения в суть их
 Самая большая польза от личного наставничества – они
поддерживают ответственность клиента. Таким образом,
если клиент согласился с планом действий. Его
обязательство перед наставником поможет в мотивации
реализовать план.
 Групповое наставничество фокусируется на
улучшении деятельности. В случае работы с
группой наставник наблюдает за текущей работой
группы, оценивает сильные и слабые стороны группы
и разрабатывает план для внесения необходимых
 Бизнес наставничество фокусируется на помощи
владельцу бизнеса в создании особого бизнес-плана с
учетом его собственной индивидуальности. Бизнес
наставничество может работать в любом сегменте
рынка: от традиционного бизнеса до начала
предпринимательской деятельности в электронном
Наставники SDPR
 Наведение мостов и объединение партнеров и
участников на уровне пилотного проекта, а также на
более широком уровне РНСБ
Способствование динамизму в достижении и
открытии сетевому взаимодействию с
окружающим миром
Помощь пилотному партнерству и школам ПОО в
анализе и решении проблем
Мотивация генерации идей для более эффективной
реализации проекта
Предлагать помощь, налаживать диалог и со
временем консультировать всех ключевых игроков
пилотного партнерства
Наставники SDPR
 Сбор и анализ информации, мнений, данных по
реализуемому партнерству и пилотному проекту с
целью получения уроков, которые будут
представлять высший результат этого эксперимента
Наставники SDPR
В пилоте
Вне пилота
 Явный упор должен быть сделан на вертикальные
и горизонтальные пути взаимодействия: сверху
вниз и снизу вверх для соединения различных
уровней решений и реализации; и горизонтально для
интегрирования политик и действий различных
секторов и институтов в рамках подходов, которые
могут решать различные вопросы, связанные с
 Отношениями с различными организациями,
различного профиля и статуса и с долговременной
хорошо налаженной деятельностью: роль и
поведение наставника будут достаточно деликатными,
так как руководство может не быть готовым принять
такое «внешнее присутствие».
 Построение партнерства в окружающей среде, где
конкуренция, самоизоляция внутри
институциональных границ и недостаток информации
друг о друге могут представлять угрозу спокойному и
надежному сотрудничеству и более стратегическому
сотрудничеству с одной стороны.
 Мониторинг, но не контроль: проверка реализации
мероприятий, предложенных последующих шагов и
подходов, решения важных проблем, интересных
результатов, моделей изменений обучения, мнений и
впечатлений представителей целевых групп также как
и игроков школы ПОО, среди прочих. Это задание
потребует хорошего набора инструментов для
эффективной работы, а также основания для
взаимного доверия и понимания между ключевыми
игроками партнерства и школой ПОО особенно.
 Управление нестандартными, инновативными
ситуациями: в то время как рабочий план и
надлежащая подготовка к проекту предусмотрит риски
и допущения, а также способы снижения их влияния,
наставник вероятно будет вовлечен в
непредсказуемые ситуации или обстоятельства,
которые могут стать новыми для профессионального
профиля наставника.
Наставник не играет роль консультанта / эксперта по
техническим вопросам ПОО, а играет роль человека, который
помогает объединять и связывать процессы и партнеров с
пилотными проектами и партнерствами.
Что требуется от наставника, так это правильное понимание
того, что означает ПОО в системе образования и обучения, или
лучше, в обучении в течение всей жизни, в стратегии
социально-экономического развития.
Но, наставники, предполагается, будут задавать хорошие
вопросы, включая вопросы из специфических областей ПОО,
вопросы, которые могут быть связаны с учебными инновациями
в прогрессивном развитии, например, в рамках обучающих
пилотных проектов. Такая поддержка инноваций в подходах к
обучению, их лучшей адаптации к потребностям и
возможностям взрослого населения для улучшения социальноэкономического положения, будет типичной задачей наставника
в нашем проекте.
Извлекать уроки для разработки политики
 Роль наставника будет состоять в поддержке и
стимулировании игроков, сборе информации и точек
зрения, также как и в анализе этих элементов.
 Наставник, как человек внешний для системы ПОО и
пилотного партнерства, будет иметь свежий и более
широкий взгляд на процессы, не будет зацикливаться
на деталях, например, технического характера.
 Наставник будет параллельно в и вовне, и
адекватный баланс участия и дистанцирования
должен быть соблюден в каждом случае.
Участие партнерств в процессах принятия решений по политике:
лица, принимающие решения в области политики участвуют в
проекте и, предполагается, должны играть активную роль
партнерствами / школами ПОО, как-то благоприятствование
вовлечению в процесс принятия решений, открытые коммуникации
сверху вниз и снизу вверх. Институциональные роли и нормативные
рамки в данном случае не рассматриваются вообще (напрямую),
только связанность и открытость к изучению, предполагается, будут
усиливаться посредством проекта.
Формы и методы необходимо согласовать с участниками, особенно, с
руководством проекта РНСБ (ЕФО) и представителями политического
уровня. Роль наставника включает в себя, прежде всего: a)
поддержка обсуждений и b) информирование о результатах и
мониторинговой информации в рамках подхода, который должен
быть согласован. Более или менее активное участие наставников во
взаимодействие с лицами, принимающими решения, будет зависеть
от прочности пилотного партнерства и заинтересованности
представителей власти в РНСБ.