March 13, 2017 Leave a comment
Before I start I need to make something clear, I think that a well supported public VET provider is, for the most part, a vital part of the VET landscape in this country. There is work and projects which are done by the public provider which are either not done by non-public providers or only done by a small number of non-public providers, usually from the not for profit sector. This piece should also not be taken to be criticism or bagging of the public provider sector, but rather a look at what seems to be a view being pushed by a range of particularly media commentators that the Public provision of VET through TAFE automatically means quality.
Firstly then a couple of facts. The vast majority of private, again I prefer the term non-public providers, deliver high quality outcomes for their students and employers. We can see this from NCVER data, and a range of reports from the various state and federal governments. We can also see this from the small number of non-public providers who have closed or been closed as a result of the fall out from the VET FEE Help issues. As I have always maintained there were about ten or so providers who were not playing the game as it should have been played so to speak. 10 out of around 4000 or about 0.25% of all providers. Enough defending the value of non-public providers however’ what is a far more interesting phenomenon I think is the calls from various commentators, that governments should be cordoning off more funding for public providers, because, and this seems to be a common theme, public providers provider quality training.
It is important to note here that I do believe that for the most part public providers (TAFE) do provide quality training outcomes to their students and employers, however as with non-public providers I simply do not think that we can automatically assume that public means quality in all cases and in all courses. We certainly cannot assume that public means better than non-public in all cases and in all courses. There are numerous examples across widely varying industries of non-public providers delivering training of at least the same, if not better quality than that which is delivered by TAFE. Just as there are examples in the opposite direction as well. TAFE does some things very well. Non-public providers do somethings very well, and across the board there are things are probably not done as well as they could be.
Of course the point of this view is to push the agenda that because TAFE equals quality that TAFE should get the lions share of government funding. The interesting thing is that it already does. The vast majority of government funding and training monies go directly to TAFE, in fact in most states the split between public and non-public when it comes to funding is about 80/20. So somewhere in the vicinity of 20-25% of government funding goes to non-public providers, while 75-80% goes to TAFE.
So if TAFE already gets the vast majority of government funds allocated to training already, and if across the board it really doesn’t seem to matter where a person goes to get your training done, as they are probably going to get a quality experience, which meets their needs and provides them with the outcome that they desire regardless of the choice them make, where, oh where is this view coming from. Part of it is certainly ideological and interestingly I have no real problem with groups, particularly political parties, taking their ideological stances, I just want them to be honest about it. I don’t care whether you are a politician, part of the education unions, an academic or a researcher, or anyone else for that matter, if you are making a stance on ideological grounds then at least be willing to tell us that.
What this sector needs going forward is not infighting between the various parties, interest groups, providers, media and others, who are whether consciously or not, promoting a particular ideology or agenda. We need facts and informed discussions. We need everyone to sit down, put their baggage, their ideologies, to one side, and listen to what other people are saying. Listen, then openly talk and enter into meaningful discussions about what is best for this sector and the vital part that it plays in the future of this country.