MEETING THE DEMAND FOR VOCATIONAL COURSES: AN EXAMINATION OF THE INFLUENCES BEARING ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN TRAINING IN NSW IN THE 1950s-1960s Ray Barker Allyson Holbrook ABSTRACT Whereas the relationship between technical education and apprenticeship in NSW was an extremely problematic one for a host of political and economic reasons, the development of technician training provides a sharp and illuminating contrast. This paper raises some interesting questions about the training debate today through its examination of the factors, among them the roles of government and professional associations, that influenced the development of Engineering Technician Training in NSW in the 1950s -1960s. Technical educators grasped the need for courses that provided for a new range of workplace classifications which tended to fall outside the province or sphere of concern of tradesmen or the professional engineer. One of the major factors stimulating the interest in, and growth of, the provision of such courses was the strength of demand by the youths themselves. The restrictions attached to apprenticeships meant that many adolescents rejected them out of hand, while older youths were excluded because of the upper age limit. Either way technician training constituted an attractive option. To what extent did the Technical Education sector exercise power over training for industry? With respect to apprenticeship training, technical educators were essentially marginalised by the power struggles that centred around the recruitment of apprentices, and by the increasingly complicated framework of industrial legislation. In the area of technician training the technical education sector took a leadership role in the development of such training and faced little opposition in doing so. The reasons for the contrast are explored in depth in the paper. Paper presented at the AARE Conference, Fremantle, 22-25 November 1993 MEETING THE DEMAND FOR VOCATIONAL COURSES: AN EXAMINATION OF THE INFLUENCES BEARING ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN TRAINING IN NSW IN THE 1950s-1960s Ray Barker Allyson Holbrook Introduction Whereas the relationship between technical education and apprenticeship in NSW was extremely problematic the development of technician training provides a sharp and illuminating contrast. Previous histories of technical and vocational education have not attempted in any substantial way to explore the role of the technical education sector in the provision of courses for the metal industry. Even more significantly historians who have approached the topic of training have failed to explore the impact of the different cultures of workplace and formal education. Education historians have even tended to focus exclusively on structures of provision for apprenticeship education with very little change in research emphasis since Murray-Smith's doctoral work. In the metal industry the management of apprenticeship and technician courses was in fact very different. These differences reflect not only the varying degree of importance attached to these courses by employers, unions and the community but also a pattern of uneven power relationships created by a host of political, economic and historical factors. To what extent did the Technical Education sector exercise power over training for industry? With respect to metal trades apprenticeship technical educators were essentially marginalised by the power struggles that centred around the recruitment and working conditions of apprentices, and by the increasingly constricting framework of industrial legislation. However, the technical education sector took a leadership role in the development of technician training and faced little opposition in doing so. The reasons for the contrast are explored in this paper. The analysis raises some interesting questions about the training debate today through its examination of the factors, among them the roles played by government and professional associations, that influenced the development of engineering technician training in NSW during the 1950s and 1960s. Apprenticeship - tradition and control An examination of the minutes of evidence of four inquiries into the apprenticeship system between 1950 and 1970, the minutes of the Conference of Directors of Technical Education and of the Council of the Metal Trades Industries Association (MTIA), as well as union journals and documentation pertaining to the metal trades; points to the importance of tradition, and in particular an adversarial culture, in shaping the role of the technical educationists in the provision and development of metal trades training courses. The long history of apprenticeship, plus its political importance to unions in the twentieth century and employer caution created barriers that 'outsiders' including the technical education sector, found difficult to penetrate. For example, when technical educators sought information for trades courses they found employers close- lipped even concerning recruitment. Moreover, the apprenticeship system in itself (its structures and processes) was a tradition - an icon acknowledged in different ways by unions, employers and government, even when the tradesman's job changed radically in the post World War II period. The apprenticeship system was a central feature in the industrial case which led to the Fitters' Margin - the benchmark against which wages were determined in Australia. Any suggested changes to the system were thus scrutinised by the Amalgamated Engineering Union (AEU) against the possibility of dilution of skills, or loss of a degree of control over entry to the trade. Examples of the iconic nature of apprenticeship and the tensions generated with respect to dilution abound in the documentary record: 'Defeat Uncontrolled Dilution Scheme: Defend Wages and the Apprenticeship System' proclaimed the banner at the top of a Metal Trades Federation pamphlet in 1963. Generally speaking the trade union movement 'strongly resisted' any 'breaking down of the apprenticeship system' including extending apprenticeships to adults, increasing the ratio of apprentices to tradesmen, and recruitment of skilled workers from overseas. Any of these were regarded as a 'direct assault on the invaluable indentured apprenticeship system'. The value attached to apprenticeship was certainly not attached to the Deed of Apprenticeship however, the archaic nature of which was regarded as something of a 'sickening' joke. Sheridan, Huntley, Hutson and Goodwin have thoroughly explored from different perspectives the adversarial nature of industrial relations in the metal trades and how apprenticeships figured in the process. During the period under study equipment became much more specialised and often operated by semi-skilled operatives. Moreover, there were changes in trade working practices. The fitters and turners role, for example, began to take on a much more pronounced maintenance aspect in manufacturing industries as opposed to being concentrated in engineering shops. Despite changes in technology, materials used, tasks performed and the structure of the labour force, the regulations and the conditions of apprenticeship remained virtually unchanged. The number of apprentices continued to decline relative to other recruitment options, such as immigration but its potential to be divisive remained. Any initiatives for change were regarded with suspicion by employers and unions. Such changes posed a threat to volatile power relations, consequently the AEU and employer groups like the MTIA had representatives on trade committees and advisory councils, and all advisory bodies formed to examine or to advise on factors affecting the conditions of the metal trades apprenticeship system. Thus the apprenticeship system developed a many-layered quality. Technical education authorities were marginalised, to their chagrin (as evident in the Assistant to the Director of the Department of Technical Education's evidence to the Beattie Inquiry) and in NSW did not even have constitutional representation on the apprenticeship councils. The Technical education authority's role was limited to the college segment (about one day per week in roughly thirty-six weeks in a year) of the apprentice's training programme. It had no influence over standards of workshop practices nor even attendance at college. The AEU did not regard examination success in trades courses as essential for entry to tradesman status. These advisory bodies were not really monitored, leading to the speculation that they contributed little to strengthen knowledge transmission of apprenticeship - a view which Beattie expressed in 1968. Beattie argued that while technical education provided a system' of training, ie an 'orderly planned arrangement' there was no such system evident in 'on the job' training and many apprentices learned by 'picking- up' information. In evident criticism of the Apprenticeship Councils he pointed out that they had not 'determined the scope of apprenticeship trades within their jurisdiction', there being no manuals, regular supervision of the trainers, or competency testing of apprentices. A system of the sort to which Beattie referred was evident, however, in the provision for educating technicians. Before proceeding on that point, however, it is useful to examine the reasons for the trend toward technician training. The trend toward technician training As pointed out above apprenticeship training maintained a constancy of form. A significant outcome was a decline in numbers relative to the population of school-leavers (see Figure 1), and in effectiveness in achieving the objective of being the principal channel through which Australia was supposedly supplied with skilled tradesmen. By contrast, a factor stimulating the interest in, and growth of, the provision of technician courses was the strength of demand by the youths themselves. The restrictions attached to apprenticeships meant that many adolescents rejected them out of hand, while older youths were excluded because of the upper age limit. Technician training constituted an attractive option. According to a report by the Conference of Directors of Technical Education enrolments rose by 110 per cent in NSW between 1958 and 1962. This trend continued into the seventies. In 1971 some 33 per cent of total technical school enrolments were in certificate courses whilst enrolments in trades courses had dropped to 20 per cent. Trades course enrolments were more than 30 per cent in 1955 , although it must be pointed out that the statistics are very patchy for that period. Figure 1 Comparison between the number of school leavers and number of new indentures in Australia 1964-5 to 1969-70 Source: Personnel Practices Bulletin, vol 26, no. 2 June 1970, p.101. The numerous job classifications included in the generic term `engineering technicians' developed out of changes in both production technology and workshop management, most specifically the segmentation of tasks. Instead of a tradesman doing the whole job from planning to production, each task over time was split into several segments, each performed by people with different sets of skills and knowledge such as production planners, estimators, draughtsmen, workshop foremen, tradesmen. The technician classifications developed in the area between engineering technologists and tradesmen as illustrated in Figure 2. Figure 2 Differentiation in work roles Source: H. King, 'The Contribution of Technical Education', Background Paper No. 2, Pan Indian Conference on Technical Education, Perth August 1966. p.28 The educational programmes for the technician classifications became vocational starting points for individuals who frequently did not have a trade background. Missing was the tradition, a culture built around a set of skills which in turn determined a set place in the workshop. Far greater flexibility in workshop role arose from technicians being unfettered by the past. An absence of tradition What emerged for the two types of training were two entirely different management systems. The apprenticeship system was run on traditional lines for high stakes. Its 'controllers' had much to lose from any loss of power, even to technical education. By contrast in the 1950s and 1960s new job classifications of technicians were continuously being provided for by the technical education sector. Technical educators grasped the need for technician training courses that provided for a new range of workplace classifications which tended to fall outside the province or sphere of concern of the tradesman or the professional engineer. The unions involved, such as the Association Architects, Engineers, Surveyors and Draughtsmen of Australia (AAESDA), worked directly with the technical educationalists. There were minimal regulatory constraints and in essence technical education constituted the epicentre of change. Engineering technicians did not have as strong a union as the AEU, in that the AAESDA was struggling to develop itself and its key concern was determining its place in the engineering hierarchy of salaries and wages. Training was a means to achieve an end and therefore to be fostered. Although non-certificate holders were defended by the union, the Arbitration Commission imposed structures by setting a certificate as the foundation standard to being accepted as an engineering technician. The role of formal technical education was thus far more central in the development of engineering technicians as demonstrated by Corbett, relevant Commonwealth Arbitration Reports, and the discussion over a decade of the Conference of the Directors of Technical Education. Accreditation and course control Whilst accreditation was accepted by the AAESDA as establishing bona fides for the engineering technicians, they in addition accepted the technical educationalists as the determiners of what and how the subject was taught and, although the technical education programmes were flexible in terms of entry of students (for example, work experience was accepted for entry), the technical education authorities also accepted students straight into the course without relevant work experience. This was different from metal trades apprentices where the only means of entry to the course was to be apprenticed. What the two segments had in common was a six State diversity in both apprenticeship and technician programmes until Commissioner Clarkson in 1965, by setting down the accreditation requirement of the certificate programme for draughtsmen, assisted in structuring the technician programmes Australia wide. Clarkson determined a specific course (the Mechanical Engineers Certificate of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology) as the benchmark against which draughtsmen were assessed in order to be classified. The degree of control over the courses was a core difference between trade and technician education. The educators kept the AAESDA out of close involvement with respect to the planning and monitoring of courses. For example, in a report to I.S. Tenenbaum, Federal Vice- President of the AAESDA reporting on a Conference of Technical Education in January 1966, Mr Lloyd stated: 'The State Education Departments are very reluctant to surrender any of their rights in the field of education of technicians'. He went on to recommend that each state division of the association should approach its Technical Education Department to 'implement our objectives on certificate courses'. A powerful indicator that the Technical Education Authorities intended to exclude the unions from a key role was the addition of a further point to the principles of certificate courses to that effect. An examination of the agenda items of the CDTE revealed that far more attention was paid in the 1960s to middle level courses than to apprentices (see Figure 3). For example, discussion over the impact of the Martin Committee and the binary system struggles over nomenclature issues, curriculum content, surveys of needs, staff salaries in order that a coordinated voice of technical education could be heard, were on the agenda at most conferences. Apprentices, on the other hand, did not feature nearly as prominently. In fact on two occasions in the 1960s, the CDTE discussion stopped because `it might upset the unions'. The openly acknowledged restrictions in ability to supply input into improving the overall apprenticeship system logically led to a rearrangement of priorities by technical authorities. Services to apprentices fell from first priority in 1914 to eighth in 1961. Trades courses were displaced in emphasis by technician programmes over which the technical education authorities had far greater control, eg. over courses, entry conditions, curriculum content and examinations. Noteworthy, however, was the outcome of the courses being accepted for accreditation by the union, Industrial Commission and relevant learned bodies. The technical education authorities were accepted as managers of the process. This did not mean a `lock-out' of sectional interests. Employers and unions and the community were involved at all stages but through surveys, discussions and course advisory committees. The educationalists organised surveys of specific needs, curriculum content, changes to the courses and had control of teaching staff as opposed to metal trades courses for which many part-time teachers were used. Figure 3 Agenda Items Discussed at the Conference of Directors of Education 1959-1973 In these consultative activities, the degree of acceptance of the initiatives by the unions and employers was notable. Even though many employers when consulted were loath to give such information as job specifications and likelihood of employing people, indeed, at the Federal level the employers delayed recognition of the AAESDA for ten years, nonetheless they readily employed the technician graduates. The AAESDA, for its part, accepted the services on offer and used them as a cornerstone of the development of the union. Far fewer structures and more face to face dealings between administration and student was in line with AAESDA policy. Two initiatives taken by the federal and the NSW state governments did limit the technical education authorities as far as technicians were concerned. The first was representation. The Martin Committee had no NSW technical education representatives on it and NSW Technical Education had no representative on the Standing Committee of the Australian Education Council (AEC) between 1949 and 1973. It had one representative on the NSW training advisory council formed in 1960 whilst the employers had five and unions had five. Maloney, the Minister of Education and Chairman of the Conference replied to the Assistant to the Director, King's, request for two representatives in the following way; 'we might be hard pressed to boil down their [employers] representatives to five and the same applies to employee organisations', indicating the perceived role of technical education in the proposed Council. The second management hurdle for the technical education authority in NSW came from its own teaching staff in respect to the practical or applied elements of the programmes. The staff strove to build the theory aspects of the programmes to the debilitation of the applied aspects. This commitment to the theoretical contributed toward the establishment of the NSW University of Technology in 1949, then in 1965 the establishment of the Institute of Technology which subsequently led to the University of Technology. The 'wastage' factor The previous discussion has pointed to the importance of numbers to, and community acceptance of, both apprenticeship and technician training. However, one factor of concern in just about every inquiry or discussion with respect to training was that of 'wastage', that is, pupils not completing the courses. The Table below indicates the extent of the problem with respect to mechanical engineering technicians. Table 1 Wastage from certificate courses in mechanical engineering NSW part-time certificate 1958-1962 Year of Course Year 1 2 3 4 1958 342 215 86 34 1959 397 262 175 118 1960 467 360 256 164 1961 597 467 302 209 1962 723 555 463 275 Source: Minutes of the Conference of the Directors of Technical Education, Background paper prepared for Agenda item no. 3, Higher Technical Education, September 1962, p.4 Comparison of the certificate course wastage figures with metal trades apprentice figures needs to be treated with caution. Technical education figures were compiled in various ways during this period. Nevertheless, recognising the limitations, John Clark as a witness before the Wright Inquiry, and appealing for the supply of improved statistics, stated that in 1952, 55 out of 297 apprentices completed the full course in the Electrical Trades and tabled the wastage figures for the Fitting and turning course 1948-52. For example, in 1948 830 were enrolled in fitting and machining, but only 151 were enrolled in fourth year from that group. Virtually nothing was done at the management level or union level to address the problem, beyond rhetorical recognition of its existence. Elements in common and contrasts between the processes of provision and development of metal trades and technicians courses The elements common to both processes are as follows. All technical education was starved of funds, the Federal government chose to focus on the universities for funding and the technical educationists could not present a co-ordinated and cohesive submission. Problems with nomenclature issues plagued any attempts to facilitate such co-ordination. At the same time the Federal government was becoming a stronger force in policies and practices in technical education, but there was no clear set of technical education policies, primarily because historically the involvement had been piecemeal. In addition, expertise in technical education was limited in the Federal sphere which inhibited the development of a coherent set of practices between Commonwealth and state. For both processes politics played an important role with respect to skills development because employment or industrial issues overlapped with educational issues. The industrial climate impacted on the knowledge transmission process to an indefinable extent. The differences between the two processes of developing metal trades apprentices and engineering technicians is represented in Figure 4 Metal Trade Apprentices Engineering Technicians 1. There were several intervening bodies supplying input into the process 1. The process was DIRECT between the Technical Colleges and STUDENT 2. The AEU/ACTU/MTIA dominated the outcome of the process 2. The technical education authorities were the epicentre of the process 3. The policies of the AEU were based on tradition formed over long experience 3. The AAESDA was a NEW union. It elected not to join the apprenticeship system. It had no long traditions to observe 4. Entry to the metal trades courses were restricted to apprentices. 4. Entry to engineering technician courses were flexible, eg. age open, through work experience, cadetship, traineeship, direct from school, completion of courses, trade background. 5. Development of the process was along formal, legalistic lines 5. A policy of the AAESDA was to keep development initiatives informal although the Courts built relevant courses into Awards 6. The strategy of the AEU was to focus on external obstacles - attack any attempt to increase numbers and any potential weakening of conditions of its members 6. The primary aim of the AAESDA was to structure their union, ie. its focus was on internal obstacles 7. Rate of growth of both numbers and of changes to the process was glacial 7. Rate of growth of numbers and of development of the process was rapid 8. One AEU policy was to control numbers to minimize dilution and to maximise its influence 8. The AAESDA policy was to attract numbers. It promoted the union to gain members 9. Marketing of the apprenticeships was neglected - especially to small employers 9. There was consistent marketing of middle level training in the 1960s by consultants and the AIM. At the apex of these private endeavours was management development and of new job classifications at the technician level Figure 4 Observed differences between the two processes of developing metal trades apprentices and engineering technicians in NSW - 1947-72 Conclusion and Discussion Concern about training has become more and more topical over the last two decades. There has been a proliferation of inquiries, appointments of advisory councils and consultants' reports concerned with technical education, among them for example, the reports of Kangan (1974),Williams (1979), Kirby (1985), National Board of Employment Education and Training (1990), Finn (1991), Mayer (1992), and Carmichael (1992). In 1984, for example, some 1700 people were engaged at any one time on apprentice matters alone throughout Australia. Clearly research into the history of this field is well overdue and necessary if real progress is to be made in resolving current problems in managing technical education. The preceding discussion has indicated how the strength of the culture of the workplace, especially evident in the area of adversarial relations, led to two very different management styles in technical education. If one just looked at the declining proportional enrolments of apprenticeship it would be possible to attribute the changes to technological and economic change post war without appreciating the impact of key sectional interests on the systems of training. The culture of the workplace was a facet which assisted in perpetuating the apprenticeship system. Even though the task of trades became different between time periods the terms and conditions of apprenticeship remained relatively constant. The agenda of key sectoral interests assisted in its maintenance. The formal educationalists entered into the traditional apprenticeship system `late', and they were controlled and were not the controllers. Concerning technicians this was not the case. The educationists perceived, consulted, implemented and changed programmes according to surveyed needs. Because of the split responsibility for training and the wider variation of work experience, coordination was more difficult for the management of apprenticeship education. These findings do have some bearing on the provision of vocational education today. First, the contrast between the monolithic apprenticeship system and the relative flexibility and role of the technical education system in the technician training area suggests that advisory bodies should have set terms, be adequately representative, be given qualitative objectives and above all should have firmly set selection criteria for representatives. The second point relates to course structure. The more integrated the total learning task, the more effective will be the learning. Metal trades apprentices were frequently remote from the formal education elements. The AEU made no effort to improve their instructors nor to insist on examination or assessment of all facets of an apprentice's education in the period under study. The technician students selected from the educational services on offer to them. The courses acted as a channel to accreditation independently of work experience. The student chose on his/her own volition the knowledge transmission process. If numbers are indicative of preference, technician programmes were preferred to the apprentice system. The integration and coordination of all facets of formal learning assisted in the acceptance by the community of the process of developing technicians. References