Get: Standard Business Plan & Feasibility Study!

Guidelines and Roles of Stakeholders (ITF & SIWES)

Guidelines and Roles of Stakeholders (ITF & SIWES)

As stated earlier, for a scheme as large as SIWES to be effective, all stakeholders must play and execute their roles diligently. Generally speaking, SIWES stakeholders, in one way or another, have not performed their roles up to the expressed or stated standards. For the purpose of this discourse, it suffices to highlight the shortcomings in the roles of stakeholders which impact the effectiveness of SIWES with a view to bringing about appropriate and necessary improvements.
Federal Government: It is clear from Table 7 & 8 below that the Federal Government has not funded SIWES adequately, particularly in recent years.





The underfunding of SIWES has led to a backlog in the payment of student allowances, extending as far back as 2004/2005 in some cases. This has resulted in lukewarm attitude on the part of students towards participation in SIWES; agitation, sometimes violent, by students for payment of their allowances; credibility problems and bad image being created for the scheme, amongst other undesirable impacts (Mafe, 2006).

The problems probably emanate from the process of providing funds for the scheme, whereby the National Assembly appropriates the funds for SIWES as part of the budget of the Federal Ministry of Industry, which in turn releases the monies for operation of the scheme to the ITF on piece-meal basis and which, in turn, then makes the funds available to the beneficiaries.
A national commission or board dedicated to the operation and implementation of SIWES in likely to bring focus to the importance of SIWES and its potentials in contributing to the enhancement of the pool of technical skills for national industrial and technological development. It should be possible for the National Assembly to appropriate funds directly to the commission or board as is the case for the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) Scheme.

On the other hand, if the Federal Government is unable to fund the scheme appropriately, it should consider not paying students’ allowances for participation in SIWES but only making funds available for proper administration of the scheme and associated overheads. Afterall, students participating in pre-graduation or pre-qualification work-experience such as Teaching Practice are not paid allowances. Furthermore, SIWES is a course of study required for graduation in a similar way as the Final Year Project which does not attract allowances but is fully funded by the student or his/her sponsors.

Additionally, there is a need for the Federal Government to strengthen its stipulation that all employers must accept students for SIWES; and also review its policies that guide and regulate SIWES at the national level with a view to making the scheme conform with the international standards for Cooperative Education.
Industrial Training Fund: The ITF should be commended for managing and running SIWES nationally in the face of dwindling resources (funding, materials and logistics) and in spite of SIWES being a secondary mandate of the Fund.

However, some roles of the Fund under the SIWES Guidelines have not been effectively performed. Firstly, there is no comprehensive and detailed list of employers who accept students for SIWES. The directory published by the ITF (ITF, 2004b) and made available to institutions contains only names of employers without their physical addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, websites and contact persons. The current directory, which needs to be updated regularly, is hardly useful for the purpose of seeking places of industrial attachment for participants in SIWES.
Probably owing to the large numbers of students participating n SIWES, the ITF has ceased supervising students participating in the scheme in situ in industry. What obtains now is that students are required to take their log books to the nearest ITF Area Office for endorsement by the schedule SIWES officer. This impacts on the quality assurance of he scheme and leaves room for truancy on the part of SIWES participants.

The ITF has responsibility for reviewing and conducting research into the operations of SIWES. The interim report of the research into SIWES operation conducted by the Fund following the 2006 SIWES Biennal Conference was presented during the 2008 edition of the forum. The interim report as well as the final report are yet to be circulated to SIWES stakeholders.
Although the Fund is not responsible for funding SIWES, it ought to do more to get the Federal Government to provide adequate funds for implementing the scheme in the face of the backlog in the payment of allowances to students and preventing the undesirable consequences of non-payment of the allowances.

Supervising Agencies: The Supervising Agencies (NUC, NBTE and NCCE) have generally lived up to expectations in directing institutions which they regulate to establish SIWES Coordinating Units, appoint full-time SIWES Coordinators, fund SIWES Coordinating Units adequately and abide by the SIWES Guidelines in operating the scheme. However, many institutions, particularly the newer ones, have not fully complied with these directives from the supervising/regulatory agencies. Therefore, there is a need for better and closer monitoring of the SIWES function and activities by the NUC, NBTE and NCCE in order to ensure that the scheme is properly implemented in the institutions. More attention needs to be paid to SIWES during the accreditation of SIWES-approved programmes in institutions to enable the scheme attain its potential in enhancing the pool of technical skills available to the economy.

Although the supervising agencies have made attempts to evolve minimum standards in respect of SIWES and to develop, monitor and review job specifications to guide the training of students on SIWES, not all SIWES-approved programmes are covered by these efforts. There is, therefore, a need by the supervising agents to collaborate more with the institutions in evolving minimum standards and job specifications for all SIWES-approved programmes.

Employers/Industry: Most employers accept students for SIWES and assign them to relevant on-the-job training. On the other hand, many employers, particularly medium-sized foreign companies operating in Nigeria, do not wholeheartedly accept students for SIWES. This attitude contributes to the scarcity of relevant places of attachment for students participating in SIWES. There is a need for the ITF to invoke the penalties entrenched in the Industrial Training Fund (Amendment) Decree, 1990 (F. G. 1990) in order to get the cooperation of employers in the training of students. It should be mentioned, however, that the penalties stipulated in the decree are not biting enough and there is an imperative to make them more stringent.

Some of the employers, who accept students for SIWES, are unwilling to allow students to handle equipment and machinery in the fear that students might damage them. It should be made clear to employers that they are the ultimate beneficiaries of the pool of technical skills that are available in the economy since they require relevant production skills for the operation of their non-human resources.

Those employers who readily accept students for SIWES and expose them to relevant on-the-job training deserve commendation. Some pay additional stipends, usually above the national minimum wage, to SIWES participants while others provide meals, transportation accommodation and medical care to students undergoing SIWES with them.

Tertiary Institutions: While many Institutions have complied with several aspects (establishment of fully-staffed SIWES Coordinating Units, appointment of full-time, SIWES Coordinators, assessment of students’ performance at the end of training, allocation of credit loads to SIWES, and operation of separate SIWES Bank Accounts), several others are not complying or are yet to comply with the standards set under the SIWES Guidelines. Such institutions need to put their acts in order to enable their students benefit maximally from participation in SIWES.

Generally speaking, placement of students in industry has been a major problem militating against effective implementation of SIWES for some time across all participating institutions. This is attributable to the increase in the large numbers of participating students and institutions, scarcity of relevant places of attachment due to the state of the economy and refusal on the part of some employers to take on students for training. It is, therefore, important to state that without places of industrial attachment, students cannot take part in SIWES. Consequently, efforts need to be doubled by institutions to ensure that students are adequately placed for SIWES.

While all institutions organize some form of SIWES Orientation Programme for students going on SIWES, the programmes have not been completely effective. The shortcomings are traceable to factors including: the large number of issues and aspects of SIWES that should be thoroughly covered, the large numbers of participating students and the limited time available for the orientation programme. For students to fully benefit from SIWES they need adequate information on the scheme and the expectations of other stakeholders. A possible solution is to organize the orientation programme for batches of students and to make available a book on SIWES, such as the one written by the present author ((Mafe, 2009), for participants in SIWES.

Supervision of students in situ in industry is a key aspect of the quality assurance of SIWES. Whereas, students are required to be supervised three times while on SIWES, very few institutions are able to supervise their students even once over the stipulated durations of SIWES. This situation is attributable to the lack of funding and necessary logistics to carry out the supervision exercise.
Again, only very few institutions endeavor to work out tailor-made training programmes with industry to guide the students’ learning and acquisition of skills while in industry. This situation is also attributable primarily to lack of logistics and funding.

Student Trainees: Many of the roles expected of students are embodied in the Code of Conduct for SIWES participants which is made available in the Log Book. While most students endeavor to keep to the tenets of the code of conduct; some students ignore aspects of the injunctions.
In addition, some students fail to take part in the SIWES Orientation Programme and, subsequently, run into problems while on training or after the training intervention.

Also, some students do not turn up in good time for posting to industry while other engage in unilateral change of place of attachment without the approval of the institutions’ SIWES Coordinating Units. Such behavior is usually attributable to the students’ quest for additional stipends from employers to whom they are to be attached.
Students, therefore, need to realize that they are the direct beneficiaries of SIWES and that the learning and skills they acquire while on SIWES remain life-long assets which cannot be taken away from them after the training intervention.


RELATED INFORMATION


Share on Google Plus

Declaimer - Unknown

The publications and/or documents on this website are provided for general information purposes only. Your use of any of these sample documents is subjected to your own decision NB: Join our Social Media Network on Google Plus | Facebook | Twitter | Linkedin

READ RECENT UPDATES HERE