VSL – The first six months, well sort of.

As many of you are aware the report on the first 6 months of the Vet Student Loans (VSL) Scheme, which replaced VFH at the beginning of the year has been released.  Now while it is not too long (a mere 31 pages, plus a spreadsheet of data), it does make for some interesting reading.  It is important to note that this report is on the six month transition period between VFH and VSL and some of the data is for providers, who while part of the transitional program did not have their approval to deliver VSL courses renewed under the full scheme.  There were 167 under the provisional arrangements but only approximately 125 have continued into the full scheme.  The other significant thing to remember about some of the details in this report is that there are caps of 5,10 or $15,000 associated with the vast majority of courses listed, with Aviation courses having a much higher cap than others.

Through transition there were 167 providers, 35 were TAFEs and other public institutions and 132 were private providers, and interestingly of that 167 only 138 enrolled students who accessed VSL funding.  A total of 24,492 students had VSL approved for a total of $78,131,044.  This represents an average across all enrolments of just over $3000 per student.  One might say on these figures alone, if this program has achieved nothing else it looks as if it has achieved the government’s goal of reducing the student debt.  It seems clear that the days of unbridled greed both in terms of enrolments and the fees being charged are well and truly over.

What is a little bit more interesting is that public providers seem to be the clear winner in the VSL funding stakes, with TAFE QLD pulling in the most funding at a shade over $13 million, and TAFE NSW coming in second with only about $8 million.  In fact all but one of the top ten spots in the VSL league ladder are held by TAFEs or public institutions with BasAir aviation college in tenth place. The truly interesting thing for me in all of this is the change in the league tables for most popular courses, with the perennial winner, the diploma of business dropping back to sixth, and the fourth placed, under VSL, Diploma of Leadership and management sliding way down the pack to a dismal twenty-first.  The upward mover is screen and media now coming in at fourth having previously been pretty much unranked, with Nursing and Community services still holding onto their VSL popularity.  What does this mean, well, what it could mean is that without the unfettered fees of VFH, slinging brokers (which you can’t really use now anyway) in excess of $5,000 to grab students off the street so you could enroll them in an $18,000 Diploma of leadership and management is no longer a sustainable business model, and perhaps when these students aren’t being pressured into signing up over the phone, at their front door or as they exit centrelink it turns out that most people don’t actually want to do the course and perhaps only did it so they could get that Ipad that was on offer.  Oh sorry I must have slipped my cynical hat on there for a moment without noticing.

If I am being really honest this report doesn’t actually tell us very much at except that VSL has done what it had been expected to do which is to curb the out of control spending which had occurred under VFH, and reign in some of the abhorrent business practices which had grown up around the program as well.  It is far to early to tell whether the design is right, I get the feeling it is at a high level but needs some adjusting where the rubber hits the road, and whether new issues will pop up as the program marches forward.  Is it perfect, no.  Is it better than the utter disaster we had previously, at least in my opinion yes.

Anyway that’s just my opinion.


Careers Australia in Voluntary Administration – Some comments

So just in case you haven’t heard the news today, Careers Australia was put into voluntary administration yesterday with PPB Advisory moving in as the administrators.  So as of yesterday there are 1000 staff who have been stood down and around 15,000 students who will have to organised into new courses through TDA who were Assurance Scheme for Careers.  I am going to be really blunt here.  I for one am not surprised that this has happened.  I said in a post earlier in the year when there was a range of closures of colleges which had grown large on a diet of VET Fee HELP, that as we approached the end of this financial year that we would see either the substantial contraction or closure of some of the big players.

Why has this happened?  The answer is actually very simple, as I talked about in the post mentioned above, heavy reliance on a single source of funding which can at any point be changed or removed is a recipe for disaster.  Careers Australia appear to have blamed the Federal Government and its policies around the sector, in particular the new VET student loans scheme and the governments decision not to allow Careers access to this scheme for their move into liquidation.

I have to say that I think if this is a true reflection of the rhetoric coming from Careers, then I think it is definitely stretching things a little.  Certainly it is the case that the cause of this collapse can probably be  linked to the decision by the government to change the way income contingent loans work and to deny Careers access to the new system.  However can we say that the Federal government is to blame, I think not.  In fact I actually struggling to find a scenario, except for the old, we are too big to fail, the government will have to bail us out mentality, that could have provided Careers and its management with the idea that they were ever going to be given full access to the new scheme.   I cannot see how someone within their management didn’t suggest that given the issues with the ACCC, a range of other issues, media coverage and general public sentiment, that there might be pretty good chance that the government, with its very strong position to clean up the sector, might, whether any of the issues raised about Careers were true or not, be reticent to give them access to the new scheme.  To be honest and to put in the word of Sir Humphrey Appleby, it would have been a brave and courageous decision by the minister and the department to allow them access to the scheme.

This should not be taken to suggest that I know anything about the inner workings of Careers or as to whether or not any of the allegations against them were true, or whether issues, if there were any, had not all been rectified.  It is just to say that simply from a point of view of being seen to be taking action and moving forward with the new scheme that, giving access to a provider which had been the subject of so much negative media scrutiny over the last 2 years would have undermined public perception of the scheme.  And the management of CA should have not only know that but have been prepared for it as well.  Even if they had been granted access to the new scheme this would have still seen their overall income drop by as much as two thirds, which would have had I suspect an equally devastating effect on them.  I am amazed that the management of CA appears not to have been working towards a solution or a way forward that didn’t include the VSL scheme, or maybe they did and we are seeing that in action now.  But again this is all simple speculation on my part and should not be taken to suggest anything about the mindset or plans and ideas of CA management.

It is yet another example of what happens when providers are far to heavily invested in one source of income, particularly where that source of funding is something that is controlled by the government.  Where your ability to be able to deliver the services you provide is entirely contingent on a single source of income and there are no plans or contingencies in place to react to changes in that income source there is always going to be a significant risk to continued financial sustainability.

I feel for the students and staff who have had their lives interrupted by this, however for a lot of us something like this happening has never been to far over the horizon.

Anyway that’s just my opinion.


Some VET Fact and Myths

Rod Camm wrote a really interesting piece for his ACPET National Monday Update this week, which really struck a chord with me, primarily because it is looking at the VET sector and trying to inject some facts into a discussion often held ransom to media outbursts and ideological positioning.  I thought therefore today I might look at the facts that Rod outlined and perhaps some others to see if we can’t get a little less biased view of our sector.

The first, and I think one of the most important facts pointed out, is that there is only about 2500 providers in the VET sector, actively delivering training, not the 4-5000 which is an often quoted number and the enrolments with these providers range from 1 student to over 100,000 students.  A lot has been made of high-flying corporate whiz kids, cashing in on the VET sector and making massive profits at the expense of everyone else The media, the various education unions and some politicians have had a field day promoting this view, often for their own ends.  The truth is however that private providers have average student enrolments of 819 with the median number being much lower at 204.  This is tiny in comparison to the 19,000 and 16,000 figures for TAFE.  The overwhelming majority of private providers are not huge corporate monsters, whose only goal is to make as much profit as they possible can; with just under 1000 private providers have less that 100 students, the vast majority are simply small providers, providing awesome outcomes to their students and the industries they serve.  I bet we will never see that little nugget from the news media or the deep left, who much prefer the sensationalism of corporate failures.  As I said in my piece early last year non-public providers are an incredibly diverse lot.

There is another myth that has been perpetrated upon this sector or more specifically upon the non-public side of the sector and that is that business and industry trusts and is more satisfied with the public provision of training than with the private sector.  You could wonder I  think, when you read the news media and the various commentaries and interviews around it as to why there was even a a need for a non-public VET sector given the love which is espoused for the public providers.  When we look at the data from NCVER however, we see a different picture; employers indicate 80.0% satisfaction with private providers, 83.6% with industry and professional associations and 66.1% with TAFE. 80% of employers are very satisfied with the training delivered by non-public providers.

Now please don’t think I am trying to badmouth or undermine TAFE here, I have always been, and will continue to be a strong supporter of a well-funded and healthy public provider system.  The public providers have a  tough job, constrained in ways the non-public side isn’t, funding, bureaucracy, student cohorts, and the needs and wants of governments, it is no wonder their satisfaction figures are lower. This doesn’t mean that they do not do as good a job as or produce outcomes equal to that of the non-public providers, it is just that when you are trying to keep so many, often competing stakeholders happy, you are never going to succeed in doing that.

On to some other stuff now, well some facts and figures, which Rod doesn’t mention, but which I think are worth commenting on, primarily costs, funding and VFH.  Now I have covered all of these points in other articles before, however I think that they are all worth mentioning again in this context.  The first is of course the issue of funding for TAFE, much has been made of the fact that TAFE needs to be better funded and interestingly in 2016 we saw a lot of people talking about the need for TAFE to receive at least 70% of the funding available for VET  This of course stopped quite quickly when it was pointed out that the public providers received around 80% of the public funding available in the sector already.  Now before you ask where this figure comes from, it comes from the actual budget papers of all of the state governments, who are the ones responsible for the funding of the TAFE sector.  The bigger question, which I asked last year and never got an answer for is where did that figure come from in the first place?

The other point is this idea that training delivered through a private providers is far more expensive that training delivered through the public provider, in one case it was claimed by The Greens, that private provision cost as much as 7 times the cost of public provision.  These claims are demonstrably incorrect as I explained in detail here.  These sorts of claims are based in general of really poor interpretation of information by people who have little or no knowledge of the sector itself.  They ignore facts such as, that under most of the entitlement funding models the subsidy if the same for all providers, so the amount of money being paid is the same no matter who delivers the training.  Even when we roll VET fee Help figures into the whole mixture of other funding and models that are out there, we see that at the very outside non-public provision across all courses at all levels the cost of delivery of a qualification through a non-public providers is about the same as it is through a public provider with both, when it all comes out in the wash costing around $45,000 per enrollment.  It is important to remember however that is figure is going to dropped substantially with the introduction of the VSL scheme in its entirety from June this year.  It will be interesting to see what happens to these figures and comparisons, when we get to look at them again at the end of the next financial year.

So why bring all of this up and talk through it?  As Rod suggested it is important that we know the industry that we are working in.  It is important that we know not just how to do the jobs that we do but the facts and figures which underpin that.  Why? Because if we don’t then we might be tempted to believe some of the  ill-informed, ideology fueled nonsense that comes to us through and is promoted by the media and other sources.  Whether it is delivered by a TAFE, and industry association, a not for profit, an enterprise RTO or a private company, Vocational education is important to this countries future and decisions about it and how we can make it better need to be based on fact not opinion.

Anyway that’s just my opinion.


What is the purpose of a VET qualification?

Over the last few weeks, the concept of mission statements for, and the purpose of, Vocational Education (VET) has been rolling around in my head, so this week I thought I might throw an idea or two about the purpose of VET in particular out to the world and see what happens.  Firstly then here is what I think is a relatively simple statement about what VET is designed to do;

Vocational Education and Training (VET) is designed to deliver workplace specific skills and knowledge, across a wide range of careers and industries which prepare participants for work, advancement or further study.

but let’s just leave that there sitting in your brains while I go on a little bit of wander through some of my thoughts on this idea of purpose in VET.

The first question which comes into my mind when I think about any kind of education, but particularly education over and above compulsory, Primary and Secondary education is why? Why would someone make the decision that they wished to undertake some program of study in some chosen field?  While we talk about lifelong learning, and learning for the sake of enjoyment and personal interest and I am sure that for a significant number of people the continuing learning process is something which motivates them and to at least some extent underpins some of their decisions in relation to learning, I don’t think it is for most people the central thing which drives them to undertake formal courses, particularly formal courses in the VET sector.

Most people, according to the NCVER just over 80%, undertake VET for employment related reasons.  This would seem to suggest that for the most part people who undertake a VET course are looking to convert the outcomes of that course (skills and a certificate) into either employment or advancement in their role or field.  This idea of converting a VET qualification into employment is an important one because I think it is one that in general all stakeholders can agree upon in terms of a purpose.

For employers and industry the idea of being able to convert a person to a worker or a more highly skilled worker through a qualification is central to why employers would utilise the VET system. Employers need workers with the right skills and qualifications to undertake the roles they have within their organisations.  From a Government perspective, if we focus on workforce participation, converting people into workers through a qualification reduces unemployment numbers, (even when they are undertaking training) and creates a pool of skilled workers for employers and industry to call upon when needed.  For providers having a good qualification to employment conversion rate helps to make the business more profitable and sustainable through growth in their reputation as a quality provider.

So it seems to me that this idea of conversion, converting a qualification into employment or advancement is an important one across the board and one which we could perhaps use to underpin our various models and thinking.  If the central goal of the delivery of a VET qualification is employment or increased chances of employment and advancement, this creates an environment where the outcomes for the student are central and quite clear.  This should then provide us with a critical lens through which to assess compliance and quality in terms of providers, connection with industry, funding levels and appropriate courses and range of other parts of the puzzle.  It also would provide students with a lens through which to evaluate both the courses they are interested in undertaking and the providers through which they wish to undertake them.


Anyway that’s just what I think.

Voluntary Administration, closures and VSL – A New Year in VET

As many of you may be aware a number of RTOs have over the last few weeks have shut their doors either voluntarily or not so voluntarily.  A significant proportion of these providers were ones which had large exposures to the VET fee Help market and have been financially impacted quite severely by the move to the new VET student loans scheme.  Have we seen the last of these closures?  I certainly don’t think we have. Over the rest of this financial year we will see the closure or downsizing of a significant number of VFH providers who, for what ever reason have been unable to adapt to the new market place.

Why is this happening?  There are a number of quite obvious reasons why this is occurring, although it is important to note that I have know direct knowledge of the the reasons behind any or all of the recent spate of closures.  The first reason I would point to however,  is a simple one, either the provider has not been granted access to the new VSL system for whatever reason, or the courses which they relied on have been removed from the list.  In both these cases the revenue which was being generated through VFH will have effectively stopped.  Take for example a provider with $11 million turnover, $10 million of which came from VFH.  Not being given access to VSL or having their courses removed from the list effectively reduces them to a $1 million turnover business and destroys the cash flow created through the VFH system.  Finding a way to plug this revenue hole will be almost impossible given the changes under VSL, because even if the provider were to be granted VSL access in the next round or commence delivery of courses which are now on the approved list there are other issues which I will outline below.

The second reason why a number of VFH providers are struggling is the loan cap.  As we know the government has capped loan amounts depending on the course you are undertaking, at $5,000, $10,000 and $15,000.  Let’s take our $11 million provider again.  Say they were delivering the Diploma of Leadership and Management under VFH for $15,000 and this accounted for all of their $10 million VFH income (I know this is unlikely but it is just an example).  The price of the the Diploma is now capped by the government at $5000, so even if the provider is granted early access to VSL and can still generate the same number of enrollments, without the use of third party brokers (which now can’t be used under the legislation) their income from ‘Loans’ under VSL will be at most 1/3 of what it was under VFH, reducing their income to $3 million making it exceedingly difficult to continue operating the same manner they had been.  The other thing to consider here is that even if the provider can generate the same number of enrollments, payments under VSL are now made on a completion rather than commencement basis.  This means that providers now have to have enough additional cash flow generated from other sources to sustain delivery and assessment to these students for perhaps as long as six months before they complete and payments flow through.  Even if therefore a provider was granted access to VSL and could generate the same level of enrollments, they will not, in most circumstances be able to maintain their cash flow at the same level which will of course mean they will either need to severely downsize or close.

The changes from VFH to VSL give us substantial evidence as to why providers should ensure that their revenue streams are as diversified as possible if they want to be able to sustain changes in government policy, funding and the market in general.  Heavy reliance on one source of funding, as myself and others have said for a long time now, is a recipe for disaster.  So will we see more of these closures?  I certainly expect that we will, in particular I think we will as the end of this financial approaches and the legacy arrangements around VFH (and the payments associated with those arrangements) cease and revenue streams become tighter.  I suspect that June/July will be the prime time this year for the closure of a number of RTOs

Anyway that’s just my opinion.

Happy New Year.


Oh What a Year its been!

When I think back over the last year, it really has been quite a big one for the sector.  So as the holiday season approaches and as I probably will not be updating my blog as regularly again until January, I thought I might consider the year past and the year ahead.

As just about everyone knows, in fact I think it would be difficult to find anyone in this country who didn’t have an opinion on VET at the moment it has been in the news so much, the sector has been in turmoil for a pretty lenghty period of time.  I remember Rod Camm talking at the Queensland ACPET Christmas party last year and saying he both thought and hoped that the worst was behind us.  However with ACN going into administration, Aspire college and the rest of the Global Intellectual holdings disappearing overnight, Careers Australia and the ACCC decisions and agreements, and Ashley Services looking very shaky at the moment it has not been a great year, particularly at the top end of town.  Not that small to medium sized providers were immune either with quite a few either leaving the sector voluntarily or because they could simply not sustain their businesses anymore.  Add to this massive uncertainty about the future of the sector during a very very long general election race, what would happen to VET FEE Help and the debacle of the new Certificate IV in Training and Assessment qualification and this year has been a cracker.

Enough bad news for the time being though.  What have been the positives for the year? Well, whether we like it or not there is now a replacement to the troubled VFH system, VET Student Loans, so at least there now exists a level of certainty around the that portion of the market. A large proportion of those providers who were doing the wrong thing have now either left, been forced out, or either been fined or in the process of being chased by the ACCC and others.  Simply removing these providers from the pool can only help to improve the quality and perception of the sector.  In terms of large scale good news that is about it, however I have seen so many providers this year, working so hard to create outstanding outcomes for their students and clients and when we look at the research and figures from NCVER we can see that overwhelmingly, this sector does a fantastic job and contributes so much towards the Australian economy and workforce.

So what about next year? Let’s just say that I think the roll out of VSL will be an interesting (the Chinese curse kind of interesting) space to watch.  With stricter entry requirements, loan limits for students, variable caps for providers depending on completion rates and a raft of other things, a lot of providers who were VFH providers or who might have been considering moving in that direction are viewing it as simply falling in the too hard basket and won’t be seeking approval to deliver.  The National Partnership agreement on skills reform, up for renegotiation as the current on expires in June 2017 seems currently if not dead in the water, leaking severely, with the states calling for a one year extension to the current agreement and the Federal government pretty much saying no.  No NPA would basically leave most of the state budgets for training with holes of around $100 Million  plus.

In terms of providers and the market itself, I also dont think we are out of the woods yet in terms of closures, restructures and downsizings.  It seems to me, as an outsider, that Ashley Services may have a very hard time trading out of the position it is currently in, at least in its current form.  There are also a number of other providers who had grown substantially on VFH incomes who will see those incomes slashed by in some cases 50-75% even if they are given approval to deliver under the new VSL system.  This will mean in most cases that there will be little chance of them continuing in their current forms and closures or restructures in terms of both staff and delivery will need to occur.  Is this a bad thing?  Yes and No.  Clearly there are probably some providers who expanded rapidly, did not deliver and did not properly invest in their continuing existence and the market may well be better off without them.  The down side of course is much wider than that, fewer available places and less choice for students, quality VET staff finding themselves unemployed or moved to contract and part time, casual work. There may also in some areas be knock on effects in terms of skilled workers in certain areas over the coming years.  So while there is a need to make sure that providers are meeting their requirements and delivery quality outcomes to their students and stakeholders, there is also a need to ensure that happens while we keep an eye on the wider picture and the impacts the VET has more generally.

Next year will be a year for consolidation and restructuring throughout the sector at all levels, a year of readjustment and reevaluation.  A year where we will see the number of providers, particularly at the bigger end of town shrink considerably both in number and size, but also hopefully a year in which the sector can reestablish itself and begin to move forward.

Anyway that’s just my opinion.

Thank you all for reading and interacting with this little slice of me for the year and thank you to all the friends both near and far I have made or held onto over the past year.  May you all enjoy whatever it is that you do over this time of year and all return happy and safe in the new year.


The State of the VET industry survey results.

As many of you are aware last month I conducted the second State of the VET industry survey through this blog.  Thank you to the many 100’s of people who responded to this survey.  Without your input it would be difficult to be able to look at the data in a meaningful way.  What I want to do in my post today is to look at some of the results and think about what they might mean and how they look when compared to the results we got from the survey which was undertaken six months ago, because as we know a lot has changed in the sector since then.

As with the last time the vast majority of respondents were either from Non-public RTO’s or were independent trainers and assessors, with a very small amount of respondents from TAFE, who were consultants, or who worked for non-RTO training companies.  Also in tune with the last survey the majority of respondents were either in senior management roles in their organisation or where in training and assessing roles.  Interesting, though not significantly was a reduction in the number of compliance or middle manager respondents from the last survey.  Again similarly respondents worked for organisations which primarily worked either nationally, in Queensland or in Victoria.  This similarity in demographic data around respondents is important because it provides us with a level of confidence when we look at the other data collected and see changes from previous surveys, that the data sets are at least on the surface comparable.  So lets look at the other data and see what we can see.

When asked ‘how satisfied are you with the vet sector currently‘, the answers were fairly similar to previous surveys, which given the results of those surveys is not terribly encouraging.  On the bright side the percentage of people who were very dissatisfied dropped from 29% to 23%, however on the not so bright side the percentage of people who were dissatisfied, rose from 51% to 55%. Interestingly about 5% of respondents were satisfied with the sector currently a small rise on last survey’s 0%, yes zero.

Clearly casualisation of the training workforce and the use of contractors is something that is on the minds of everyone, as while  the number of full time, part time, casual employees and contractor remained basically the same as with the last survey, when asked how they thought their workforce would look in 12 months, the consensus was that full time numbers would drop by around 25% and while part time numbers would remain about the same, the 25% loss of full time staff would would be taken up by casual and contracted staff.  This thinking is clearly driven by uncertainty in the market around sustainability, cost vs income, and an uncertainty around funding arrangements.

This uncertainty plays out across the questions regarding income streams, profitability and continued financial viability.  While it seems that most RTO’s are attempting to utilise as many different sources of income as they can, there is a significant, almost 15%, increase in the number of RTO’s operating in the fee for service space, with that 15% showing up as a drop in the number of providers utilising VFH arrangements.  Providers have either dropped out of the VFH market or have changed their business models to prioritise VFH less within their income streams to attempt I think to somewhat limit the damage to income as a result of the changes to VFH and the release of VET Student Loans.

Interstingly more than double amount of respondents this time felt that their profitability would increase over the next 12 months, 38% as opposed to 14% in the last survey, problematically however,  there was also a significant increase in the number of respondents who felt their profitability would decease substantially, 24% in this survey as opposed to 11% in the previous survey. My initial thoughts around this would be the increase in the number of who felt their profitability would decrease substantially stems from the changes to be rolled out under VSL, such as price and student enrollment capping, while those that feel their business will increase, are I think those who feel that increased fee for service delivery and changes to business models will drive profitability up.

This trend is around uncertainty is also seen when we look at financial sustainability over the next 12 months.  While the percentage of respondents who answered neutral, sound or very sound in terms of their financial viability over the next 12 months remained exactly the same at 37%, the number of responded who felt their financial viability was very unsound increased from 9% to 23%. The upshot of this would seem to be that we will continue to see a range of providers throughout the market close up shop over the next 12 months unless they can find ways to solidify their financial base.

The final thing I want to talk about today was the results of the questions around the VET Student Loans (VSL) proposal which seem to echo the sentiment that I have been hearing a lot from people that I talk to.  A significant number of respondents (41%) are neither happy nor unhappy with the proposal, answering neutral to the question how happy are you with the VSL proposals.  While it is true that about 30% percent of respondents were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the proposals about the same percentage were satisfied or very satisfied with it.  Clearly however the vast number of respondents, some 73% have no intention at least in the short term of applying to be able to access the VSL system as it currently stands.

So there you have my first cut of the data that has come through and as I said a lot of what the data says seems to echo the general anecdotal sentiment that I have been hearing over the last few months.  While people in the sector are worried about its future and the impacts of the massive amounts of change we have seen, and will continue to see, there is still significant numbers of people who feel at least somewhat buoyant about the future

I will leave a link to the survey here  so if anyone who hasn’t contributed would like to they can.

Now I don’t know about all of you, but as the silly season is fast approaching, (I will start saying Happy Christmas to people tomorrow as I have a ban on saying it prior to December 1st) things will slow down somewhat around here until early in the New Year.  So firstly I would like to thank all of you out there who read this little piece of me, whether you read every everything or have just read one thing I truly appreciate it.  To all the people who comment, both here on wordpress, on linkedin and in other forums, I really want to thank you for engaging, for challenging, for both agreeing and disagreeing.  If as a sector we are unable to look upon the work that we do objectively, and to listen to both the criticism and the praise then we are doomed to fail.



%d bloggers like this: