VET & TAFE campusreview. com. au
Reputation, reputation
Responsibility for the quality and integrity of the system rests with all providers.
By Rod Camm
The recent announcement by the federal Senate to hold an inquiry into vocational education and training( VET) is welcome. It will provide a much-needed opportunity to refocus recent debate on what matters, which is ensuring our skills training system delivers the best outcomes for students.
This support should not be interpreted as recognition of systemic problems within the VET sector. In fact, it is disappointing that the inquiry’ s Terms of Reference seem to indicate the inquiry will focus solely on private VET providers. Surely our attention must be on how to ensure a high-quality and diverse system for all participants, regardless of whether the provider is public or private?
Ultimately, all registered training organisations are responsible for the sector’ s reputation.
The growth in private education has been driven by the demand from individuals, industry and governments. I am a strong advocate of the need for an agile public system. As a person with broad experience across the sector, my views are never about public versus private. Rather, it is student and broader industry choice that drives the success of high-quality providers. All programs, priorities and delivery models must cater to choice. High-quality standards and a strong regulatory regime are also vital. There is much to learn in this regard from the governance practices evident in higher education.
The VET sector has come under recent scrutiny given the current debate around higher education fee deregulation and the extension of funded places to nonuniversity providers. There have also been some alarming reports of brokers and agents exploiting government-subsidised training and preying on vulnerable people with training loans they can never repay. These are ugly stories that deserve scrutiny and regulatory action of the strongest kind. However, with more than 4500 private training providers in Australia, it should be
acknowledged that whilst this behaviour is only at the margins of our industry, it receives a disproportionate amount of media scrutiny. The sector is overwhelmingly dominated by hard-working professionals who are committed to delivering a high-quality service.
Our regulatory system is having an impact. Since its establishment in 2011, the Australian Skills Quality Authority( ASQA) has diligently removed poor performers from the industry, lifting the overall quality of the sector. Rejections of applications for renewal of registration have fallen from 12.1 per cent in 2011 – 12 to just 3.5 per cent( 33 applications) in 2013 – 14. Rejections for change of scope of registration were only 1.4 per cent of more than 7000 applications in 2013 – 14.
It is easy to forget that ASQA is still catching up from the recent days where we had different regulators with very different approaches in every state and territory. We can all see now why the system appeared so inconsistent.
Public providers have so far been largely protected from the operations of ASQA, as their registrations were predominantly processed by their respective states and territory agencies before they dissolved. As more public institutions access contestable funds such as VET FEE HELP and are audited by ASQA, all providers will start to work to the same rules. When the regulatory framework is the same, we can better understand and inform interventions that may be required and have a truly contestable market.
Improved data will play an important role. For example, as part of any Senate inquiry, scrutiny of student completion data for enrolments funded by VET FEE HELP loans is welcomed. If the data is transparent, we will know who the best providers are and how to fix any concerns.
Of course, the industry must also play its own role in assuring the integrity of qualifications.
ACPET is strongly committed to quality education and intends to increase its
20