The report on unduly short course duration and what it means

Unless you have been hiding under a rock recently you will have heard, I am sure, about the ASQA report into Unduly short duration courses.  This 171 page behemoth of a report looks into and makes recommendations regarding, what has been viewed by a lot of people as a significant issue with the deliver of VET qualifications, courses of study with very short actual duration’s.   Now I am not going to dig through the entire report, if you want to know what got us to this point and the general research and thinking behind the recommendations feel free to dive into it and have fun. Today I am just going to look at the recommendations made towards the end of the report, what I think of them and what effect they might have on the sector.

So the three recommendations that come out of the report are;

  1. Strengthening the Standards for RTOs by defining the term ‘amount of training’ to include the supervised learning and assessment activities required for both training packages and VET
    accredited courses.
  2. Ensuring effective regulation of training by enabling Industry Reference Committees (IRCs) to respond to identified risk by including appropriate training delivery requirements, including the amount of training, and
  3. Enhancing transparency by requiring public disclosure of the amount of training in product disclosure statements, presented in a consistent way to enable comparisons across courses.

Of these three, it seems at least to me that it is the last one which is the least contentious, that is requiring public disclosure of course duration.  Of course for it to be able to be effective recommendation one does really need to be sorted out first.  If there is no consistent definition of what constitutes  amount of training, and no consistent way of presenting this information, then three is really pointless.  let’s however put that to one side and I will come back to it later when I talk about the first recommendation.  I see no real issue with providers being required to publicly disclose the duration of their courses, both in a product disclosure statement and on MYSKILLS, and that the PDS be provided to every student.  One of the advantages here is that having this information publicly available is that not only does it provide the consumer with additional information which can be used to realistically compare programs, but also it provides the regulator with a metric which can be audited and the provider held to account were they don’t meet their own durations.

Let’s take a step back now though and look at recommendation one.  If recommendation three is fairly uncontentious then one and two are pretty polar opposites. There have long been arguments about what constitutes the amount of training, with a range of divergent opinions such as nominal hours meaning essentially face to face delivery hours to what constitutes supervised and unsupervised learning and to try and get a definition out of anyone about how long a course should actually be and to have some consistency around the answer if you do get it is almost impossible.

So let’s have a look at what the report says in recommendation one about what should or should not constitute ‘amount of training’ It is proposed that amount of training could include:

  • supervised or guided learning, such as:
    • tuition and other trainer-directed workshops or activities
    • structured self-paced study
    • structured work placement
    • projects and prescribed set tasks
  • Assessment activities.

It would not include unsupervised learning, such as:

  • private study or preparation, including prescribed reading, or
  • self-initiated learning or research.

Here is the thing, when I look at what is being recommended it seems pretty reasonable, or at worst it seems to cover all of the things I would want a definition like this to cover and excludes the things it probably should.   Anything that is instructor led is included which, well, should be an obvious inclusion, structured self-paced covers elearning, distance and those other forms of non instructed led delivery, this is certainly in my opinion another obvious one, but one which has been challenged (wrongly I would suggest) by some.  Structured work placement and a catch all for projects and other set tasks rounds out the list and a pretty fair list at that.  With a definition out of the way we can now move onto the Recommendation Two, the one that has been worrying people the most.

It is recommendation two where the rubber meets the road so to speak with the report suggesting that where the IRCs feel that there might be an unacceptable risk—including a risk to the learner, the workplace, the community or the environment—or where there are already systemic issues with the quality of training that the IRCs recommend a strategy to effectively mitigate the risk which may include:

  • specifying mandatory training delivery or assessment requirements (including the amount of
    training where this is warranted), and/or
  • providing enhanced guidance to RTOs through the inclusion of recommended training delivery or
    assessment requirements, including the amount of training.

We have already seen a movement towards this in a number of training packages, with mandatory work placement hours and specific assessment criteria (Student must have provided information to at least 3 clients) forming part of the newest iteration of the CHC package for high number of units and qualifications.  These kinds of criteria and placement hours have long been part of other packages and were sorely need in the CHC package and are probably something with most of the training packages should, if they already don’t include.  What the report doesn’t say is that mandatory ‘amount of training’ should be included in all packages and qualifications.  It does suggest that in;

  • aged and community care
  • early childhood education and care
  • security operations
  • equine programs
  • construction safety induction (‘White Card’), and
  • training and education,

that consideration be given, due to the fact that considerable risks have already been noted in these areas, to including a mandatory ‘amount of training’ for new learners as a matter of priority. Given the quality of some of the training which has been delivered in these areas I can’t say that I am adverse to this idea, importantly I am not adverse to this idea for new learners.  For people with experience in the sector undertaking training, placing the same mandatory ‘amount of training’  is unwarranted and would create undue difficulties for experienced people needing to obtain qualifications.  That being said, having a mandatory ‘amount of training’ for new learners would provide a guide or a benchmark from which training provided to more experienced learners could be judged.

While I understand that part of the argument against minimum durations is the how long does it take a person to be competent argument, to which the answer is of course well as long as it takes, which could of course vary widely between learners.  I might be a much faster learner than others and get competence in  half or a third of the time the average person takes, but also it may be the case that I may be slower and may take twice as long as average.  This doesn’t I think negate the fact that for new learners, we can probably come up with a fairly reasonable minimum mandatory ‘amount of training’ in those areas where this kind of intervention is required.

The other argument raised is that employers are ones who are pushing for quicker and quicker delivery times, they want new staff to be trained as quickly as possible. But here’s the thing, employers can’t have it both ways, they can’t have staff trained as quickly as possible and then complain about the quality in the next breath.  I have had this argument so many times with managers over the years in a variety of roles both in and out of RTOs, you can either have it fast, cheap or good, pick two because you can’t have all three and anyone who tells you you can is either lying or trying to sell you something.  Having  mandatory minimum ‘amount of training’ however cuts the legs of this argument straight away, the answer to the can we have that quicker question is simply no and we have official documentation to back it up.

All in all I can’t say that I have any real problems with the recommendations, yes, having a minimum mandatory ‘amount of training’ worries some people, however I would suggest that for a lot of the high quality providers in the market, they would be meeting or exceeding any minimum requirements that were ever made mandatory.

Anyway that just my opinion.

Advertisements

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.

 

Does Public VET mean Quality VET?

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.

Rebuilding VET

So  a number of people over the past few weeks have asked me about my opinions about how we can rebuild and revitalise VET in Australia.  While I have in the past spoken about what I thought might be specific changes to particular parts of the system, I have to at least some extent shied away from proclaiming my view for a future of VET.  One of the reasons for this is that, to me, a lot of what happens in this sector, a lot of what the sector does and the vast majority of the outcomes which are produced are excellent.  I am not sure that the sector needs a reimagining or wholesale reenginerring of how it operates.

If you listen to the left you will hear the constant chant of TAFE TAFE TAFE, get rid of private providers and the system will be right.  If you listen to the right, it is all about market forces, competitiveness, and the free market and here of course is the rub, they are both right and they are both wrong.  The answer lies somewhere in between.

We need a strong public provider and a strong network of private providers to make the system work effectively, more importantly though we need both groups to be treated the same and regulated the same, and not just in name only, in actual practice.

We need to recognise that trainers and assessors in this industry need to have three skill sets.  They need to have a deep understanding and relevant, up to date knowledge of their industry; they need vocational currency.  They need to have and understanding of the VET sector; how assessment processes work and what it means for someone to be competent, and they need to be good at presenting the material they are covering in an engaging and meaningful way, so that students actually learn what they need to.

We need the owners and senior managers of of all providers, be they public or private to really actually put students and their outcomes first.  Yes sustainability is vitally important, but we are in the business of education, so the actual education should be our focus, not how much money we can make, or whether or not we have the best office or the best view, or what awards we get.  The outcomes for students should be at the heart of what we do and if it isn’t we should probably get out and find another sector.

We need the regulator to actually regulate.  More than that however, we need to regulator to act fairly, consistently and in timely manner.  It is essential that providers regardless of whether they are public or private, new entrants or longtime RTOs, catering to 100 students of 10,000 students that they will be treated and assessed fairly and consistently and that breeches dealt with appropriately.

We need to government to invest in the VET system and to invest in it properly.  There is a need for sensible long term commitments to funding plans, be they direct entitlement style funding, organisational funding or contingent loan facilities.  The commitment however has to be long term and it has to address the skills and knowledge needs of this country moving forward.

Sounds really simple doesn’t it.

 

Massive changes to VET FEE Help – The King is dead, long live the king

While right at this point there has not been a complete outline of what is going to happen it is fair to say that the days of VET FEE Help are over.  The deeply flawed system which most of us have been critical of almost since its inception will be scrapped at the end of the year and replaced with a completely new system for 2017.  If you want to look at what is currently being reported about the changes you can see articles here and here.

What do we know at the moment?  Well it seems from looking through the information that I have a lot of the suggestions that myself and other have made and that I have talked about at length in previous articles (Redesigning VET and reinventing VFH) have made the cut shall we say.  Lets then look at the major changes we know about.

Everyone will have to reapply and there will be tighter conditions for entry

This had to be part of any package of reforms as far as I was concerned.  No package where currently contracted providers were simply rolled over into a new system was ever going to have legs. The old application system and criteria were systemically flawed and concentrated on the wrong metrics entirely when both determining if someone could be a provider and then managing that provider.  Making everyone reapply will almost instantly contract the number of providers because a number of current providers will simply self select out for various reasons and I am certain that the government will not accept contracts with a number of providers who may look at applying.  The idea that Relationships with industry, student completion rates, employment outcomes and a track record in education will all be assessed when deciding which colleges can access the loans program is a breath of fresh air and should have been included in the first place.

A ban on the usage of brokers and cold calling by providers

This is something that had to happen as well, not just because of what brokers have done to the system, but because cold calling random people and hard selling them a $20,000 diploma has nothing to do with educational outcomes and everything to do with making as much money as possible in the shortest period of time.  It has been my opinion for a long time now that the rise of brokerages, and providers willing to use their services, no questions asked shall we say, was the single most significant factor in the issues which arose from VFH.

A three-tiered system of loan limits will be introduced, with loans capped at $5000, $10,000 and $15,000 depending on the cost of teaching the course.

Again this is in my opinion a no-brainer.  I am yet to be convinced and a lot of people have tried, that a diploma of management is worth $10,000 plus. I think a tiered system rather than a flat cap acknowledges that different types of courses require different investments and have different costs associated with their delivery.  What this will do is reign in the costs associated with programs and bring them back to some sort of normalcy, something they haven’t had in a number of years.  Remember in some cases we saw 300-400% rises in course fees over essentially a 5 year period, with, in the vast majority of cases, no changes to costs or content, well except for having to pay a broker 25%.   UPDATE – Loan caps only apply to the amount of money which a student will be provided with by the government to ‘pay’ for their course.  Providers may charge whatever they wish for the course in question and students will be required to pay any difference between loan cap amount and course cost themselves.

Only students enrolled in courses aligned with industry needs and likely to lead to a job will be eligible for the loans.

I have said it before and I will say it again I am sure, vocational education is about employment outcomes and workforce participation and my mind has boggled at some of the courses which I have seen offered by certain providers.  I acknowledge that there are concerns around priority lists and the like, but if we are being honest here just how many personal trainers and counselors do we need to have.  This in conjunction with the tiered payments model should at least, if properly applied mean a much stronger employment outcomes for money invested in income contingent loans.

The new scheme will include tighter conditions so colleges can be paid in arrears and poor performing institutions can be suspended and have their payments cancelled.

All providers will be paid monthly in arrears based on authorised and verified student data. This is something which should have been part of the system from the word go.  Large upfront commencement payments drove the other activities which broke the system.  If there had not been such substantial almost unregulated upfront revenue a lot of the issues which occurred simply would not have happened.

The Fallout

Massive contraction at the Mega end of the market. Those providers with large exposure in their revenue streams to VFH, particularly those carrying a high level of debt which requires servicing are going to be in serious trouble as will any provider who has been used to charging $10,000 plus for a Diploma of Business, whether they are small or large.  Any provider which doesn’t have a diversified business revenue model will struggle to find their feet again and we will I think see a not insubstantial number fold or contract heavily.  If I was a provider who relied on VFH for a substantial part of my revenue, particularly if my dealings with ASQA or the Department had been anything less than favorable, I think I might be a little worried right now.

But anyway that’s just my opinion.

Let’s start being positive about VET

As some of you know I have been out of commission for a couple of weeks due to an injury to my hand, and during this little break from writing, I have spent a lot of time reading commentary, writings and discussions about the sector.  Something has struck me from all of this reading and it is something that really concerns me.  It seems that a lot of the commentators, industry leaders, thinkers and just people in the sector generally are spending a lot of time complaining and focusing on the negative issues which seem to be surrounding us.  Why does this concern me? Well mainly because we know that what it is we focus on and think about is what we see and what we get.  So if we continually talk about what is wrong about this sector, what needs to be fixed, and what all of the problems are, that is what we are going to see, that is going to inform our viewpoint of the sector and more importantly it is going to infect the viewpoint of others about our sector. Don’t get me wrong here, I like everyone am guilty of being critical of the sector and sometimes we do need to verbalise criticism, but too often I think this critical view takes over, so I want to try to change that a little today and see if we can’t just be positive about the sector for a while.

First off I am really proud of the sector that I work in.  I feel privileged to work in the VET sector, this is a sector that changes lives.  I was at a conference recently where a lot of people (and a lot a highly placed people) shared stories about how this sector had changed peoples lives.  Like the (youngish) grandfather who had improved his reading so much while undertaking a VET course that he was now able to read stories to his granddaughter and the massive change in the way he felt about himself that this seemingly small thing had created.  The kids from generationally  unemployed families, in deeply impoverished areas, getting apprenticeships and breaking out of the cycles that had been their lives.  People with Mental illness getting qualifications and training to help them to be able to work with others with mental illness to help those people on their own roads to recovery.

What we do in the VET sector is important!

We don’t just issue pieces of paper to people, or fill their heads with knowledge, or teach them how to perform tasks.  All of that stuff is well kind of the boring stuff of the sector, the nuts and bolts that sit underneath what it is that we really do.  We offer people the opportunity to change their lives, to have the opportunity to do things they are passionate about, to look at the world differently and explore the opportunities that are there.

VET changes lives!

I am so grateful that I have been able to work in the learning sector, be it VET or organisational learning, or professional and personal development for so many years, because it fuels that passion and that idea that what we do is important and let’s be clear it is not just important to the people we teach.  The importance of what we do if is wider than that.  We have seen recently several reports about the return on investment created by the sector, the value of international education, and the range of other important things that this sector does for the country as a whole.

So I have a little challenge for you all, Whether you are from the public sector (TAFE), a private provider, a not for profit or and enterprise RTO, let’s even if only for a little while try to focus on the great things this sector does, let’s talk about and share the good stories, the life changing moments, the things that really matter, because if we do that then we will improve the sector and the image of the sector far more than we ever could by focusing on the negatives.

 

Anyway, that’s just my opinion.

ACCC decisions, ASQA, VET FEE HELP and the end of the mega college

A few weeks ago I wrote a piece entitled Death knell of the high growth mega college looking at the significant issues that were facing a number of the most high profile mega colleges in the VET sector and suggesting that what we were seeing was in fact the last throes of the large, aggressively marketed and growth oriented private RTOs.  Yesterday we saw what is another nail in that coffin with the ACCC announcing it had accepted a court enforceable undertaking from Careers Australia regarding false or misleading representations and engagement in unconscionable conduct, in breach of the Australian Consumer Law around the marketing of its VET FEE HELP courses.  So before we look at what this means for Careers Australia and what it might mean for the sector lets have a quick look at the decision and undertaking itself.

Between 1 August 2013 and 31 March 2015, Careers Australia received and processed applications from around 40,000 students for enrolments into its VET FEE-HELP courses. Of these students, 20,242 were enrolled and incurred a debt to the Commonwealth. Careers Australia received approximately $190 million worth of payments from the Commonwealth in relation to these students. The ACCC was concerned (and Careers Australia has admitted by virtue of its undertaking) that some of its agents engaging in door-to-door marketing and telemarketing across Australia, made false or misleading representations and engaged in unconscionable conduct.

“This conduct affected some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged groups of consumers in Australia. For example, it is unacceptable that Careers Australia allowed 80 consumers from a remote Aboriginal community in Yarrabah, Queensland to be enrolled into courses and incur debts when they were offered inducements to sign up but not alerted to the debts they would incur,” ACCC Chairman Rod Sims said.

So what does this mean for Careers Australia, well first and foremost it means that Careers Australia has undertaken to automatically cancel the enrolments of students who have not completed a unit of study, and repay the Commonwealth any amounts received as a result of those enrolments As a result of this undertaking Careers Australia has cancelled at least 12,130 of these student enrolments and either repaid or partially repaid to the Commonwealth amounts totaling at least $44.3 million.  This is a phenomenal sum both in terms of money and in terms of sheer enrollment numbers.  Sixty percent of its enrolments over 18 months up to March 2015, have been cancelled.  In addition while $44 million has been repaid the other thorn is that Careers Australia will now not be eligible for in excess of $300 million which it may have been able to claim in relation to these students.  Now let us let that sink in for a moment, it looks as if Careers Australia’s potential (and actual) cash flow has been gutted to the tune of somewhere between $50 million and $350 million depending on how they modeled future payments.  In addition to this though there may be many more cancellations and potential refunding of cash as, as part of the decision, Careers Australia will also invite other students who may have been misled to approach them should they want to have their enrolment and debt cancelled.  If even 10-15% of their other enrolled students feel they were mislead, given the dollar amounts charged for various qualifications we could see the repayment figure rapidly approach $100 million.  One could be forgiven for suggesting that White Cloud Capital who own a significant portion of the company might be feeling a little worried at the moment as might the other shareholders.  Of course being a private rather than a publicly listed company means that we won’t see a sharemarket implosion as we saw with Vocation and Australian Careers Network.

The next question is then a simple one and that is can Careers Australia survive this, and in addition to that simple question a more complex one, being, should it?  It seems certain I think that as a result of this Careers Australia will and probably must at the very least downsize and attempt to control costs and must also rethink its business model, from the ground up if it does hope to survive this.  There is a bigger question here though and that is should it survive this?  Should a company which has acknowledge that its agents engaged in unconscionable conduct be allowed to continue as a Registered Training Organisation and hold a VET FEE HELP contract or for that matter any other contract.  I mean I have worked in Yarrabah (in another life), I know first hand the conditions and levels of education and general skills and knowledge (and I mean no disrespect to the people of Yarrabah here at all) that exists there and I can tell you that without a shadow of a doubt no one with common sense, let alone a conscience could ever enter that community and think that 80 of the residents there understood what they were being signed up for.

I am struggling as I am sure many others in the sector are, with whether a company who knowingly allowed these kinds of activities to occur should be able to continue to operate in this sector. Surely this undertaking must however make ASQA as the regulator, the Federal Department of Education and even the various state training departments with whom Careers Australia has contracts, seriously consider their next actions.  It begs the question, can the Federal government do anything else other than remove Careers Australia’s VET FEE HELP contract and if that happens will we see another of the mega providers slide into administration.  If that happens I like so many others will feel deeply for both the staff and the students who are caught up the in the middle of it all.

What does this mean for the wider sector though?  It means that anyone who was using a broker or agents and who wasn’t careful around the students they enrolled in their VFH programs should be feeling a little uncomfortable at this point, particularly considering that the ACCC currently has actions around four other providers and is looking into another five.  On the other hand it is a good thing.  This rampant growth fueled by education brokerages and agents who had a sign up everybody attitude had to stop.  The damage it has done to the sector in beyond belief.  I would however also like to see the ACCC go after the brokers and agents themselves, though I acknowledge that this may be significantly more difficult.  This is however what the industry and the sector required, it required those who allowed these things to occur to be called to account so that these practices which in no way contribute to the outcomes of students, the sector, industry or employers can be stamped out and we can get back to doing what the vast majority of providers both public and non-public do and that is provide high quality training that makes a real difference in the lives of people.

Anyway that’s just my opinion.

 

%d bloggers like this: