Not everybody can afford to go to college or university. Many cannot even go to high school. At the very least, the government should help equip people with skills good enough to land them a job even if they lack any formal education. There should be more programs for giving people employable skills to help them become productive.
I went to a technical high school. During our time, we finished high school with two diplomas: one for academic, and another for technical. The technical “diploma” was the equivalent of a TESDA (Technical Education and Skills Development Authority) certificate now, and would have allowed me or any of my fellow graduates to seek employment as a “technician” or a tradesman right after high school.
For those who cannot afford school, some form of sanctioned apprenticeship program should be made available, like those in the UK. Those aged 16 and above can get paid jobs while learning a trade or skill. They get on-the-job training and experience while learning. Meantime, they dedicate at least 20% of their working hours completing classroom-based learning with a college, university, or training provider to earn a nationally recognized qualification.
In short, rather than having to first complete a TESDA certification prior to working, they can complete training and gain experience while on the job, then secure certification when they reach a certain level of competence. This will allow particularly disadvantaged youth to start working earlier, and start contributing to the family income even while attending trade school or completing a certificate program.
More people need a variety of employable skills, rather than a university degree, to get ahead in life. There are many “unschooled” entrepreneurs particularly in the service industry — providing services such as welding and machining, air-conditioning, automotive repair, computer repair, electronics repair, electrical rewinding, etc.
On the other hand, there are many university or college graduates without jobs because they lack “skills” for jobs that are available. They are unable to find “office” work, getting left behind by their peers now working abroad as “skilled workers” and getting paid handsomely for their training, competence, and experience. IT is another industry that requires more skills and experience rather than formal education.
At the same time, a skilled worker specializing in a particular trade should not be restricted to just manual work. They can also develop design and art skills, and become artisans or craftspersons that “create” rather than just “build.” An example is sculpting, which in a sense, is mostly “manual” work. But design and artistic sense turn the “work” into a “work of art.”
However, it appears that to date, many skills training programs are still catering mainly to menfolk, as they emphasize more the “manual labor” aspect of work rather than competency in a particular skill. For instance, there seems to be a bias in favor of training and employing a male welder or a male operator of heavy equipment, when such work can be just as competently handled by women — or members of the LGBTQ community, for that matter.
Anyone can be a carpenter, mason, plumber, electrician, welder, or machine operator. Young, old, men, women, or any of the LGBTQ. And forget white collar vs blue collar. One is not better than the other. It is just a difference in skills sets. What matters is that people work, get paid fairly, and become productive members of their community.
Also, skills, more than formal education or a degree, allow the marginalized and disadvantaged sectors to access more opportunities. Older women, for instance, can still be equipped with skills that will allow them to do output-based work or offer services, or even run small businesses. It is a matter of encouraging more programs that do precisely that: identify the poor, marginalized, and most disadvantaged sectors and equipping them with “productive” skills.
Not too long, such a program just ended, but not without first benefitting over 58,000 Filipinos — including youth, women, indigenous peoples, and persons with disabilities. The program was the Skills for Prosperity Programme in the Philippines run by the International Labour Organization (ILO) and funded by the United Kingdom government from 2019 to 2023.
The program was said to have helped improve equity, quality, and relevance in the Philippines’ technical and vocational education and training (TVET) and skills systems. In its four-year run, the program was estimated to have directly benefited over 7,000 people and indirectly supported over 51,000 individuals, majority of them women.
A statement from ILO said that by collaborating with government agencies, industries, social partners, TVET institutions, and workers, the Skills for Prosperity Programme “successfully elevated their caliber, rendering the country’s TVET and skills systems more inclusive, relevant, and future-ready.”
The skills program also conducted pilot initiatives aimed at enhancing the skills of trainers, students, and workers in provinces of the Visayas. “If adopted on a larger scale, this could lead to a trickle-down effect, positively impacting the lives of more Filipinos, particularly those from vulnerable demographics,” ILO said.
Khalid Hassan, Director of the ILO Country Office for the Philippines, added, “We need to ensure that national TVET and skills systems are inclusive and responsive to industry needs. We need to equip workers with the right skills set so they can enjoy better job prospects.”
Beneficiaries of the program include abaca farmers and processors from Aklan, and root crop farmers from Iloilo. In Samar, women tikog and buri weavers and dyers were trained, while in Cebu, Lapu-Lapu, and Mandaue, construction workers were mentored by the Cebu Contractors’ Association. The skills program was made possible by funding from the UK government, which went a step further by also supporting a new ASEAN program for women and girls’ education.
Given the UK-ILO skills development program’s success, perhaps it can be studied and replicated to also benefit regions outside the Visayas. And, other than the UK, maybe other governments from Europe, the Americas, and Asia can perhaps be called on to lend a helping hand in funding more skills-training programs. After all, many skilled Filipinos workers end up doing work in their countries as well.
Local government also have a role to play in this, by identifying areas and people in need of skills training opportunities, and by offering to make maybe small but meaningful investments in improving the lot of these people. LGUs can then work with NGOs and groups like the ILO in identifying suitable development partners.
Having witnessed how the UK-ILO program benefitted over 58,000 people, perhaps the government can reach out to more foreign development partners to support a wider and far-reaching effort to upgrade the skills of Filipinos. As they say, if you give people fish, then you feed them for the day. But if you teach them how to fish, then you feed them for a lifetime.
Marvin Tort is a former managing editor of BusinessWorld, and a former chairman of the Philippine Press Council
matort@yahoo.com
