TAFE
Flexibility key to survival
For public providers to compete with private operators they will have to adopt new teaching methods and embrace online tools By Michael O’ Loughlin
I
think I can say without fear of contradiction that the VET system and the TAFE system in particular have come under great pressure in the past few years.
The turmoil in the Victorian VET system, which has been at the forefront of national reform, has received enormous media coverage.
As a CEO of a Victorian public provider, I have had to steer my organisation through a number of years of uncertainty and dramatically reduced funding. I have had to ensure that it not only survived but carves out a place for itself in the new tertiary education landscape.
While state governments in other jurisdictions have closely examined the impacts of the Victorian reforms and have publicly stated their intention to learn from these experiences, there is little doubt that the winds of change are sweeping the national VET system.
Supporters of these reforms would say that some state and territory governments have formed the view that they can achieve better value-formoney for their investment in VET by introducing a student entitlement model and engendering greater competition and diversity into the provider market.
Others would say that this is a cover for an unprecedented attack on the VET system in general, and public providers in particular, driven by a perception that public providers are inefficient and slow to change.
Whichever view one takes it would seem that in some jurisdictions there is now a crisis of confidence in the VET system.
These challenges are particularly focused on the Victorian VET system and readers will need to judge the extent to which they apply to their own systems.
In addition, the traditional champions of VET( industry organisations and local enterprises) seem to have gone remarkably quiet.
Recognising the value of VET A first key challenge facing the VET system and public providers in particular is to re-focus the attention of governments, industry and the community on the value of the contribution that VET and the public provider can make to economic and social development.
It was not that long ago that skills formation through VET was championed as a key strategy to re-dress the decline in the productivity of the Australian economy through innovation and workforce development.
The Australian VET system was also seen to be among the best in the world, and being able to play a leading role in support of our regional neighbours in their economic growth through skills formation. For some reason governments and other stakeholders seem to have lost sight of the key role of VET and the public provider in meeting industry skill requirements, supporting workplace productivity and innovation, improving rates of participation and engagement in education, training or employment and contributing to community development.
In addition, the traditional champions of VET( industry organisations and local enterprises) seem to have gone remarkably quiet. The days of vigorous lobbying of governments for increased investment in skills formation seem to be a thing of the past.
This is particularly surprising given that Australia’ s productivity and international competitiveness has declined over the past decade or so. There does not seem to be a focus on business innovation and the introduction of new technologies supported by investment in workforce up-skilling and re-skilling.
To re-engage industry we must, in my view, refresh and revitalise both what is delivered and how it is delivered. If we are to become a smarter country and lift productivity we will not do it through the current training package construct. The nation and therefore the training organisations need to embrace a range of new forward-thinking constructs which will allow our teachers to focus on meeting both the current and future skill needs of our workforce.
Equipping our graduates with a broader range of skills that enable them to thrive in a new and changing workplace, rather than the narrow skills base defined in training packages, is critical.
A necessary accompaniment to this new construct
30 | February 2013