VET
An imperfect case for a new
VET system
High hopes for an improved VET quality framework remain unfulfilled. By John Mitchell
The initial hopes raised by VET policy papers sometimes fade a little after a second reading. This is the case with regard to the position paper recently issued by the National Skills Standards Council( NSSC),‘ Improving Vocational Education and Training, The Case for a New System’.
A first reading of the well-worded paper might provide initial comfort for those people looking for a sharpening of the regulatory standards for VET providers, particularly to rid the system of some of the rogue providers exposed in the media in the last eighteen months.
The same people would want the NSSC to provide the VET regulator, the Australian Skills Quality Authority( ASQA), with demanding standards that ASQA can use to quickly run the crooks out of town and save the sector from ongoing disrepute and students from being ripped off.
And who better to drive this strongarmed process than ex-federal minister and now chair of the NSSC, John Dawkins. With typical frankness, Dawkins admitted in the foreword that the position paper“ responds to concerns regarding regulatory failure” as well as concerns about quality in teaching and assessment and changes in the labour and training market.
He continued this frankness in an interview for Campus Review in which he said that the core issue for government and the sector is quality, and that those providers“ who are given this opportunity, this privilege, this right to issue the qualification” need to deliver the training and assessment that“ is intended in the training packages.”
“ There is a need to ensure that the integrity of the system isn’ t being affected by poor delivery or poor assessment. That’ s the core of the issue from our point of view,” he said.
In the interview, Dawkins rejected early criticisms of the NSSC position paper that it was about trying to eliminate small registered training organisations( RTOs) and insisted instead that it was about improving the quality of training.
Speaking about the paper’ s suggestion that some providers relinquish their status as fully-fledged providers and partner with others, he said“ this isn’ t a move to reduce drastically the number of RTOs. It’ s all about trying to improve the delivery of the training that the RTOs are supposed to be providing, most of which we think is probably OK.
“ We’ re trying to ensure that the conditions of registration or licensing as we are proposing, [ are ] really about the delivery of the training … and therefore the integrity of the qualifications that are issued.”
Comforting proposals Those people seeking more stringent standards for the regulation of providers will be further comforted by some key aspects of the NSSC paper, particularly the proposal about licensing new providers, provisionally for 18 months and then for five years. The provisional period will give the regulator ample time to assess the provider’ s capabilities.
Another interesting proposal mentioned above is that some providers consider
36 | April 2013