Appolenon L. Gordon | TVET is more than a philosophy: Time to put our money where the mandate is

For years, the buzzword echoing through the halls of education ministries and economic summits has been TVET (Technical and Vocational Education and Training). It is hailed as the "engine of growth" and the "blueprint for sustainability".

But if we pull back the curtain on our so-called "premier" institutions, a troubling reality emerges: we are world-class at discussing the philosophy of vocational training, but third-rate at funding its practicality.

If TVET is to be the driver of our economy, we must stop treating it like a low-cost social project and start treating it like the high-stakes capital investment it actually is.

THE ‘PREMIERE’ PARADOX

Across the country, institutions are rebranding. Signage is being repainted to include "Technical" or "Polytechnic" in the title. Prospectuses are filled with rhetoric about "equipping the next generation" and "bridging the skills gap".

However, walk into the workshops of many of these "premier" institutions, and the irony is palpable. Students are learning 21st-century mechanics on 20th-century engines under trees as opposed to state-of-the-art labs.

Computer labs are running outdated software on sluggish hardware, and "hands-on" training is often reduced to watching a singular instructor demonstrate a task because there aren't enough consumables for every student to practice.

The hard truth: You cannot build a modern economy on a foundation of theoretical welding or "chalk-and-talk" carpentry.

THE HIGH COST OF COMPETENCE

The primary reason for this disconnect is a refusal to acknowledge that TVET is expensive. Unlike a traditional liberal arts degree, where the primary overhead is a lecture hall and a library, a high-quality TVET programme requires:

• Cutting-edge Machinery: Technology in fields like Mechatronics, Renewable Energy, and ICT moves at lightning speed.

• Constant Consumables: To be "competent", a student needs to fail, try again, and use up materials, whether that’s copper piping, lumber, or expensive chemical reagents.

• Industry-Standard Facilities: If the lab doesn't mirror the modern factory floor, the student isn't being trained; they are being misled.

FROM PHILOSOPHY TO PRACTICE

Investment in TVET is not a "sunk cost"; it is bridge financing for the national economy. When we underfund these institutions, we produce graduates who require months of retraining by the private sector, or worse, graduates who hold certifications for industries that no longer exist in that form.

If we are serious about TVET as a sustainable driver:

• Stop the Rhetoric: Cease the branding exercises until the infrastructure matches the title.

• Public-Private Partnerships: Move beyond guest lectures. We need industry leaders to co-invest in equipment and curriculum design.

• Dedicated Capital Expenditure: Government budgets must move away from just paying administrative salaries and toward a revolving fund for equipment upgrades.

CONCLUSION

TVET is not just a "good idea", it is a sophisticated, resource-heavy pillar of industrialisation. We have mastered the philosophy, we can speak of it well; we know why we need it. Now, we must find the courage to pay for the how.

Until our "premier" institutions are filled with the hum of modern machinery rather than the echo of empty promises, our economic engine will remain stalled in the garage.

- Dr Appolenon Lee Gordon, JP, Ed.D, MSc., B.Ed., TVET, A.A.Th, is a university lecturer and TVET practitioner. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com