Objective and accurate
(Baonghean) - On November 27th, delegates attending the 8th session of the National Assembly voted to approve the Law on Vocational Education. However, one issue remains unresolved: should the Ministry of Labor, Invalids and Social Affairs or the Ministry of Education and Training be responsible for state management of vocational education?
The reason it was left open is that when asked for their opinion, out of a total of 336 votes received, 114 votes (34%) agreed to assign the Ministry of Labour, Invalids and Social Affairs as the lead agency for state management of vocational education; 99 votes (29.4%) suggested assigning it to the Ministry of Education and Training. Thus, neither side obtained a majority, so it was temporarily assigned to the Government for management and a decision later. Those who supported assigning it to the Ministry of Education and Training argued that with decades of experience in establishing, managing, and developing the college and vocational education system, the Ministry of Education and Training has more experience and advantages in many aspects of state management and professional expertise. Particularly in its relationship with ministerial-level agencies such as the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Labour, Invalids and Social Affairs, the Ministry of Public Security, the Ministry of National Defence, or other ministries regarding the management and development of schools to train human resources for the country and support students with policies and regulations... Considering the continuity and development of these issues, the Ministry of Education and Training clearly has many advantages. Transferring management to the Ministry of Labour, Invalids and Social Affairs would require careful consideration, as this would be costly in terms of time, effort, and the wasted infrastructure built up over many years.
However, the reality is that vocational education and training within the education sector over the years has still had many limitations and weaknesses, failing to meet the needs of building a workforce that meets practical requirements. There is an imbalance between supply and demand.This has led to a situation where there are too many teachers and too few skilled workers, especially highly skilled and technical workers. Furthermore, many "teachers" have to work as "workers," and even then, they can't complete the job properly. This is clear evidence of the "infrastructure built over many years" and its current state. Is it reliable and viable, or does a new foundation need to be built? Therefore, many delegates have overlooked this "long-standing foundation," and the low percentage of votes in favor is entirely justified by reality.
Those who support transferring management to the Ministry of Labour, Invalids and Social Affairs argue that breakthroughs and new advantages can be achieved in vocational training and career guidance, based on a close connection between labor training, job placement, and social welfare for workers. Because the Ministry of Labour, Invalids and Social Affairs is the specialized agency responsible for employment and ensuring the livelihoods of workers, it has considerable experience and resources in this field. If this ministry takes charge, it will create uniformity from input to output. Perhaps that is why, even though it didn't win a majority, the number of votes in favor of the Ministry of Labour, Invalids and Social Affairs was significantly higher. A slight complication here is that currently, the Ministry of Labour, Invalids and Social Affairs manages the vocational training system at the elementary, intermediate, and advanced levels, while the Ministry of Education and Training manages the professional education system, including intermediate and advanced levels. Furthermore, college is now classified as a level of higher education.
Meanwhile, in essence, vocational secondary education, vocational college, and vocational college all conduct training with a practical, vocational orientation and focus on developing vocational skills for learners to directly serve production and service activities. Therefore, before deciding which ministry should be responsible, the vocational education system should be reorganized to merge vocational secondary education with vocational secondary education, and vocational college with vocational college. It must be centralized under one authority to have a governing body that manages it systematically and comprehensively as a specialized system in order to achieve high efficiency. In the "dispute" over state management of vocational education, there is also a rather delicate aspect: vocational education is currently considered a "lucrative opportunity" because the country's development needs, both now and in the future, require a large number of well-trained workers. Whoever manages this sector is considered to be "well-off" because the state budget always prioritizes this area. Therefore, every ministry wants to manage that "lucrative piece of the pie."
Therefore, it is crucial to note that when assigning tasks, the effectiveness in serving the overall development of the country must be considered, rather than the interests of any particular ministry or sector, in order to have an objective view and make an accurate choice.
Duy Huong
