VET & TAFE campusreview . com . au
The industry view
Reforming VET & TAFE courses and qualifications .
By Jenny Lambert
One of the first priorities for the
new National Cabinet Reform
Committee on Skills , being the old Skills Ministers forum , is to identify a reform direction for Training Product Design and Development . This article puts forward industry ’ s view on what that reform could look like , and what path it should not go down .
These views have been developed by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry ( ACCI ) in close consultation with our member associations . ACCI has over 80 association and state chambers as members , and over 25 of them have a strong interest in vocational education and training ( VET ) covering sectors such as construction , plumbing , electrical , retail , hospitality , surveyors , air conditioning mechanics , and pharmacy .
Training products which underpin VET delivery , including the guidelines to develop them , have become increasingly complex . We need to return the tool to its fundamental use , which is a set of skills standards that are needed to perform the jobs that currently exist , including jobs in transition , and those jobs identified as ones likely to exist in modern workplaces . This shift takes the focus away from a
qualification-led approach to VET and returns it to a focus on the occupations that are well served by skills developed in the VET system .
This approach to simplify what are currently called training packages could also potentially allow for innovative and differential approaches to curriculum and assessment at the training provider or jurisdictional level .
As a not unimportant starting point , we support a change of name from training packages to occupational skill standards , being skill standards appropriately grouped into occupational skill standards when they reflect a job role or series of closely connected job roles .
The current term ‘ training package ’ does not adequately describe the role these core elements play , and indeed can be misleading . The vocational system is purposely not curriculumbased at the national level . A system based on skill standards delivers a focus on outcomes and reinforces its practical and relevant approach to modern workplaces .
There is also confusion between the language of training product and training package , with them often used interchangeably when one is a subset of the other . In addition , the term accredited course is confusing , as most stakeholders would believe , with some justification , that all approved VET is accredited .
It is recommended that the terminology be changed as follows :
• Training Packages should be called Occupational Skill Standards reflecting the job facing nature of the skill standards .
• The term Training Products , currently incorporating training packages and accredited courses , could remain unchanged .
• Accredited courses ( which do not currently go through an industry development process ) and are approved by Australian Skills Quality Authority directly , should be called Supplementary Accredited Courses or something similar . This would reflect the primary role for accredited courses being to meet immediate needs not yet incorporated into industry standards . Approval of supplementary accredited courses could switch to the Australian Industry & Skills Committee , reflecting the need to better integrate these supplementary courses with occupational skill standards . An appropriate period of transition to accept and incorporate the terminology would be expected .
This recommendation is more than just about names . It is about improving the understanding of the system in the most fundamental way and reflecting industry ’ s main role in training product development being to identify the jobs that exist and are forecast to exist in their sector , the skills and knowledge needed including the level of
26