Like Australia, Singapore has a fair number of providers. According to the IAL\u2019s survey, close to 95% of the responding training providers are small-medium enterprises with less than 200 employees. \u201cAlmost half (45.8%) of these had less than 10 employees \u2026 while a third of the TPs employed between 10-49 employees.\u201d This sort profile of provider size is pretty much the picture for Australia too: lots of relatively little ones.<\/p>\n

Profiling their VET professional staff<\/h2>\n

The report characterised providers\u2019 staff as Adult Educators (AEs) often with multiple job roles, training managers (who look after program management, curriculum assessment, training resources, learning systems, quality assurance, compliance and administration) and those with a human resource development role \u2013 which includes \u201clearning and development, talent management, performance management, organisational development and human resource planning and implementation.\u201d<\/p>\n

The study found that the main reasons AEs joined VET was because of a passion for training and adult education, a second career opportunity and for a better work-life balance and flexible working hours. Money was not a big thing, the report found. In fact:<\/p>\n

\u201cMany AEs come to the \u2026 sector with enthusiasm to share their knowledge and diverse industry experiences, which helps to make learning more relevant to the learners.\u201d<\/p>\n

A significant number – about a third – also still hold an industry position. For others \u201cthere are concerns over their industry expertise and how to keep their industry knowledge current is critical for quality of AEs.\u201d Again, this sounds a lot like what one hears in Australia.<\/p>\n

What about job quality?<\/h2>\n

The report found that:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe majority of adult educators reported favourable scores in almost all six dimensions of job quality namely autonomy, complexity, security, career prospect, and pay (i.e., except for job intensity\u2014majority of AEs reported [a] highly intense job).\u201d<\/p>\n

This outcome did not compare as well as it could with others in full-time professional occupations, however. One solution put forward was to concentrate more on improving work autonomy given the correlations between all the factors, but a focus on job security would be an easier policy lever to pull, the report suggests. A focus on both these factors would seem to be sensible to us!<\/p>\n