Let’s talk about the system before we talk about funding.

There has been a number of articles and papers popping up recently which have discussed the need to reform post secondary training and education funding in Australia.  Now while certainly I would agree that this is an issue which we need to look at, and one which requires careful consideration, I can’t help but wonder if it isn’t a little bit of the tail wagging the dog.  Bear with me while I explain.

There is always a lot of discussion about how VET in this country is funded, who should get what, should it be more competitive or less, what should be funded, the list is endless and so is the opinion and verbosity about it.  Firstly don’t get me wrong, I think that discussions around how we fund post secondary education and in particular VET in this country are vital to our ability to be able to deliver high quality educational outcomes and ensure equality of access to education in this country.  However all of this talk of funding obfuscates the real problem that underlies the entire sector and that is the question of what is the purpose of the sector and what we need to do to ensure that we have a system that best addresses that purpose.  I would hazard to guess that if we took the approach of making sure the system and purpose of the sector were aligned that we would need to spend much less time thinking about the who, what, and how of funding as hopefully the answer to these questions would be apparent as a result of how the system worked.

For quite a long time I have held the position that when we look at the VET sector, its purpose is fairly clear and that is that the purpose of Vocational education and training is to designed to deliver workplace-specific skills and knowledge to assist participants to improve their workforce participation options.  Now over the years people have suggested that this concept is to narrow and that the purpose is to increase the overall levels of education with in the country, so that we have in general a smarter better educated populous, because education and learning are ends in themselves and not simply means.  While I have some sympathy with the position and generally that education and learning are important in and of themselves, this is not and should not be the central purpose of vocational education in this country.  It is certainly not the purpose for which the vast majority of students use it for.

it is clear from years worth of data collected by NCVER and other places that more than 80% of all participants in VET are seeking to convert their participation in the sector and subsequent qualifications to improve their workforce participation levels, either through getting a job or by improving or changing the job role that they currently have.  If the vast majority of participants in the sector are seeking workforce participation improvements and the sector is, pretty much by the definition of the words themselves (Vocational, Education, Training), about delivering workplace skills, then it seems clear, at least to me, that the main purpose of the sector should be what I outlined above ‘to deliver workplace-specific skills and knowledge to assist participants to improve their workforce participation.’

Given the purpose which I have put forward this gives us a fairly solid foundation from which to commence building a system to deliver on that purpose.  I don’t propose to do all of that here and now, but I will point out a few things which instantly seem to pop out.  The first is that there must be a connection between the knowledge and skills being learnt by the participant and the role they want to utilise them in.  No point in teaching someone underwater macrame if they want to an airline pilot or teaching a prospective printer how to work a Gutenberg Press. This means that there must be an intimate connection between industry, content, delivery and assessment.  It also needs that the system needs to be agile enough to cope with rapid changes in the skills and knowledge base of particular industries.

It also means that the system must ensure the validity, particularly in terms of competency, of any qualification issued.  Participants must be able to convert their qualifications into workforce outcomes and the only way that can effectively happen is if there is robust confidence in the competency outcomes of the qualification.  If as an employer I cannot guarantee that a person a particular qualification or  a qualification from a particular provider, then I am less likely to allow the conversion of that qualification into a workforce outcome, which in turn undermines the entire system.  In fact if workforce outcomes are the primary purpose of a VET system then the ability to convert qualifications into those outcomes is the lynch pin.

As i said I am not going to try and develop and entire basis for a system here, but as i said earlier, while discussions about funding are vital, we need to ensure that we have a system that supports the purpose of what the sector is trying to do first.

Advertisements

About pauldrasmussen
Paul Rasmussen is one of Australia’s most widely read Vocational Education and Training Commentators. He provides deep, unbiased analysis and insights not only on topical issues, but also on the underlying structure and policy which supports the industry. His writing and analysis has been praised for its uncompromising and thought provoking style and its ability to focus on the issues of real importance to the sector. He has advised various government departments and ministers, training providers, public and private organisations, not for profits and small to medium enterprises on the VET sector and the issues and opportunities facing it. He is one of Australia’s most awarded learning professionals and a regular speaker at a range of conventions and forums. His extensive experience in vocational education, and learning and development coupled with formal qualifications in philosophy, ethics, business and education management allow Paul to provide a unique view of the road ahead and how to navigate it.

One Response to Let’s talk about the system before we talk about funding.

  1. Martyn Webster says:

    Paul,

    Some funding models are directly linked to industry need. Providers need to present case to the funding body for funding training based on specific employers or a wider employer group who have a documented need for more skills in a particular area which affects them. It seems to me that this model fits you concept of funding training to meet needs.

    Compare this to schemes which are based on entitlement, where each person has the right to be funded (or receive an income contingent loan) for a set amount of training of their choice. I actually don’t have a problem with this in principle – an extension of the public schooling system. However, this model relies on a contestable market to link the demand for skills to the funding of skills and that has proven to be a poor mechanism to achieve that. NCVER data shows that alignment between course and area of post-course employment is very high where funding is linked to employment, but low where it is not.

    I think we need for both types of funding models – one to meet immediate skills needs of industry and another to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to receive the education they need to perform the most productive job they are able to.

    I think that VET funding models have been refined over the last few decades to meet both types of need and that’s appropriate. The VET FEE-Help debacle was an huge and very expensive failed first attempt, but it has now been refined (as VET Student Loans) and adjusted and will continue to be.

    My proposed answer to this problem in the longer term is that any new funding schemes be examined by a body specialising in criminal fraud investigations to assess and monitor each scheme until there is some confidence that adequate controls are in place. If this was done with VET Fee-Help it would never have gotten started in the form it did as the holes were obvious to anyone who knows the industry.

    In fact, the concept should probably widened to include any scheme where government funding for anything is offered, proportionate to the amount of money being provided. It should be a special group within a law enforcement agency (not the bureaucrats from the industry regulator) and funded by a treasury department (at state or federal level).

    Regards, Martyn.

Let me Know what you think

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: