VET & TAFE campusreview. com. au
Public scrutiny improves policy
The difference in how two Labor governments handled criticism of programs shows how bringing problems to light leads to better reform.
By John Mitchell
Just one glance at the policy failures in the VET sector suggests there is eminent sense behind the calls for a sensible, national debate about the issues surrounding deregulation before the higher education sector changes any policies.
The current VET policy debacles are partly because the sector did not have such a debate before deregulation was pushed through COAG and driven with fervour into Victoria and other states.
From 2009 onwards, so-called VET reform was driven by statebased bureaucrats – including those in Treasury – convinced they could artificially design a well-functioning VET market in which governments could set prices for courses, students could safely select their training provider, funds could be calmly withdrawn from TAFE and quality providers could triumph over rogues.
Victoria admits it’ s at‘ rock bottom’ A glance at the VET sector in the first week of April 2015 showed that none of these market mechanisms had been well designed by bureaucrats around the Australian states.
For example, in Victoria, the minister for training and skills, Steve Herbert, admitted that employer and student satisfaction with the quality of training in Victoria is the lowest in Australia. Herbert told the Sunday Age in early April that employer and student satisfaction is now“ at rock-bottom levels” – a sad indictment for the pro-market bureaucrats who foisted VET reform onto the Victorian population.
Fairfax Media periodically lampoons the flawed policies in Victoria that led to this low point for the VET sector. Prior to the state election in November last year, The Age argued that,“ The falling away of the TAFE sector, through government neglect and, worse, deliberate government action, is a tragedy for this state and to those who want to further their education. It strangles a person’ s hope and possible opportunities to take part in the economy.”
Another editorial in the same paper in late March noted that“ slashing TAFE funding was likely to have been one reason for the Coalition’ s dramatic one-term defeat”. The editorial recollected that reduced TAFE funding was introduced“ just as youth unemployment was rising, and hit regional areas particularly hard”.
“ Nor was it properly explained why one of Australia’ s wealthiest states, with a balance sheet to be envied, thought it necessary to slash an education sector geared to getting people into work,” the editorial continued.“ Thousands of Victorians had their learning and employment opportunities stymied. TAFEs could not cut hard enough or lift fees high enough to keep up with the government’ s cuts, with five institutes having their financial stability risk rated as high. Worst of all, according to the new state government, student enrolment numbers tumbled.”
Far from disagreeing with this description of VET policy failure, Herbert has committed to a review of VET quality assurance and a separate review of VET funding. He has also added to the initial $ 320 million allocated for rescuing TAFE by finding an additional $ 50 million to assist those TAFEs that are struggling financially and to fund programs to connect colleges with local employers.
28