Balancing CDF Drive with Needs of the TEVET System
By Michelo Maunga
Since
assuming office in 2021, the UPND Government has progressively raised
allocations to the Constituency Development Fund. From a meagre K1.6 million,
as at 2024, each constituency is due to receive K30.8 million. Going by the
recent trajectory, it is expected that this allocation may well rise once more
in the 2025 National Budget. CDF has 3 components; namely, Community Projects,
Youth & Women Empowerment and Secondary School & Skills Bursaries. 60%
of the fund goes to Community projects whilst the remaining 40% is split
equally between empowerment and education programs. The implication of this is
that there will be and has been an influx of students in the Technical
Education, Vocational and Entrepreneurship training system.
The
question that remains, however, is whether the TEVET system is able to absorb
the demand that has been created for skills development. This author believes
without addressing the bottlenecks in the skills development framework, the
benefits from CDF increments, vis as vis Skills Development, may be
compromised. Generally, the TEVET system is in dire need of reform. Even before
the increased allocations, the sector grossly under-performed in terms of its
ability to produce quality graduates. Many of its graduates were and continue
to be rendered unemployable by private sector, contributing to high youth
unemployment rates even amongst semi-skilled young people. These challenges
have been brought on by several factors, amongst which are inadequate funding
to the Authority responsible for TEVET in Zambia, limited trainer-industry
collaboration and fragmentation in the oversight function.
Narrowing
on one of the aforementioned challenges, in the 2024 National Budget, only K70
million was earmarked for TEVET institutions. This implies that out of an
education budget of K27 billion, 0.25% of it was to be spent on Trade &
Vocational skills institutions. This is insufficient to achieve much, let alone
improve the outcomes of TEVET programs and quality of its graduates. Aside from
the resources that come from Central Government, the Skills Development Fund,
to which employers contribute, is intended to play an equally prominent role in
financing skills provision. However, concerns have been raised on whether these
funds, which amount to 0.5% of gross emoluments paid by employers, are spent on
Skills Development by the Government. The concerns are borne out of the fact
that the levies are first remitted to the treasury, whereupon the treasury
makes an allocation to Skills Development. Private sector has long argued for
the funds to housed solely by TEVETA or alternatively, the Ministry of
Technology and Science.
In
light of the above, whilst the motivation in increasing funds available for
Skills through CDF is well understood, one wonders whether, for better results,
this policy move should have been complemented by reforms to the education
system, particularly the TEVET sector. General Education seems to have
benefited from a raft of reforms and support, with the curriculum structure
modified and tens of thousands of teachers being recruited. Little attention,
however, has been given to TEVET. Despite this, the strain on an already weak
system has substantially increased. Across the country, TEVET institutions are
grappling to accommodate the many students who are being sponsored by CDF
bursaries. Class sizes are growing, whilst the amount of infrastructure and
equipment remains the name. When we consider the nature of Vocational
Education, which must be heavily practical, with students being able to
practise on equipment, one wonders whether the students on Government
sponsorship are actually improving their skills or it is just an academic
exercise of learners acquiring certificates.
This
author therefore, recommends that the resource envelope for TEVET be increased
to a level commensurate with the increase in Skills Development funding from
the Constituency Development Fund. The resources for this are certainly
available. What has been lacking is not necessarily resources but rather
prioritization of TEVET by Government. 0.25% of the Education budget is a far
cry from what is required. Policymakers must realize that unemployment will not
be reduced by merely exposing learners to an education, but by ensuring that
this education is of a high quality and standard. There already are a large
number of TEVET graduates who cannot be employed. Without reforms to the
sector, Government is simply adding to the many unemployed youths with
certificates, certificates which are worth little in the eyes of private
sector.
In
ending, broadly Government is to be commended for what CDF is accomplishing.
With experience, the teething issues that were experienced initially such as
delayed payments seem to be lessening. With respect to the skills component,
however, it is cardinal that the TEVET framework be strengthened. Without this,
the gains from the policy will be limited. Government should have first started
by addressing the gaps in TEVET and then progressively increased the number of
students in the system. The call therefore, is that there be an overhaul of
TEVET in Zambia, to ensure that as resources are unlocked through CDF, learners
receive the training that will make them employable in the labour market.
The Author is an Economist and Member of the Economics
Association of Zambia
Comments
Post a Comment