THE JOYCE REVIEW - A RESPONSE

At first reading this review provides an interesting range of recommendations. However, some appear to concern issues that were addressed in previous reviews, and in all honesty reveal nothing that has not already been raised, debated and either implemented or ignored in the past.

Like all previous reports this review recommends more power to ASQA, and, for example regurgitates the same old argument, without providing a shred of evidence, that there is an issue with the quality of assessments and this will in part be fixed by grading the assessment outcomes.

The review also suggests – like previous reviews – the creation of new bodies and this will fix the issues surrounding training package and qualifications development. On the positive side, it does give some thought to the problems of those bodies created a few short years ago (SSOs and ISCs), but rather than address the teething problems the current actors are experiencing the recommendation is to create new ones.

I'm not sure I agree with the rationale for this. Why can there not be a root and branch evaluation of the current processes and recommendations put forward for improvement? How will their problems be eased by creating a new body to take over their responsibilities?

What was interesting, and heartening, were the comments that skills shortages are not always the result of a lack of training. There are many other issues behind such shortages and these too need to be addressed. A very sensible suggestion, but I am afraid I may not see this addressed in future discussions about skills shortages. Instead I fear we will hear more about the need for TAFE to get more funding to fix the so-called skills shortage problem. A bit like saying we have a problem with the engine of the car so we should buy new tyres.

Disappointing, though, was the description of the VET 'system' as a set of interconnected regulators, RTOs and qualifications. There was clearly a significant input from some of the more influential actors and their particular agendae have clearly been incorporated into the recommendations. But that was always on the cards so we shouldn't be surprised. However there was only a slight nod towards history, and no mention of other players - past or present - such as the NTB or ITABs. The word competencies was only rarely used, and often in the wrong context, little if any of employers (and not just industries) or other key players or processes at all. Again, unsurprising when only the greatest voice is given to larger organisations whose experience at VET is limited only to what impacts on their business model.

It is difficult to not believe that the purpose of many of the contributions to the review is little more than a positioning of their issues in order to set themselves up for larger chunks of the proposed funding increases, but it has always been thus so no change there. Reading between the lines, however, there is a sub-text that smaller RTOs will be further squeezed out of the game regardless of how successful they have been. Bye bye smaller RTOs.

So, overall thoughts? Nothing new was contained in this review. In fact it appeared to be a compilation of all of the common complaints that we've heard over the years ('poor' assessment practices, grading qualifications, ASQA's lack of powers, dodgey providers, and so on). And we can all make our own mind up about the appropriateness of offering the New Zealand model as an exemplar to be emulated.

One issue of significance is that the report does acknowledge that there are far too many players in the VET sector, but rather than suggest the government coordinate and streamline them into a more agile and effective system, the proposed solution is to create more and use them to run interference in the existing system - thus centralising the processes and giving power to fewer, and not more competent, players. 

I admit to liking the concept of Skills Organisations, but the proposed model sees them covering more industry groups than current SSOs. In my view this will raise a concern that there will be little change to current practices unless those within the SOs are given the skills to monitor and advise training package development. I am not sure where such expertise will come from because, in the main, the best knowledge and experience of the needs of an effective VET system are those found amongst the practitioners, not from within the ranks of the bureaucrats or regulators. History has shown that those who have gained the greatest experience are those impacted upon by the decisions made by the bureaucracy. This review confirms that the bureaucracy itself has not learned.

We once had a body that was more than capable of providing advice and guidance across all branches of the VET system. It was even called upon to assist in the creation of similar systems overseas - including the New Zealand model. This body was called the NTB, but the inherent power the Board had was far too attractive and eventually it was pulled apart and shared amongst other power-hungry bodies. My fear is that unless those within the proposed SOs are given the skills, knowledge and confidence to lead the proposed reform of VET, and the authority and power to use such competence to lead a new and better model of VET, then all that will change is the letterhead and the injection of a new player into the already over-burdened system. And more rules, regulations and power to the authorities will not fix this.

There is no doubt that VET in any country can be characterised as a very complex, and at times, chaotic system. Students of complexity and chaos agree that the only way in which achievements are made within such systems is when there are fewer and more straightforward rules created and all actors agree to follow to follow them. So far we have had nothing more than new rules which the greater proportion of the actors find too convoluted, complex, and impossible to follow. If there was a need for a model of simplicity in a complex system then the introduction of Visa credit cards is an example of a global achievements made through the application of a few simple rules to what could have been a very complex and chaotic environment. 

This review, like all previous reviews, tries to treat the VET sector as a simple, controlled (and controllable) system that involves a linear and symmetric processes whereby students or trainees enter at one end of the continuum and depart with a qualification at the other. The common view is that the training that students receive can be predetermined (in training packages) and fixed (in the so-called industry-led competency standards, thus controlling the learning objectives), resulting in a controlled and stable outcome each and every time (ie, qualifications that employers will accept as relevant to their business and strategic objectives). Although I suspect that the authors did not mean to give emphasis to this, but this review – once more – demonstrates that this is simply not the case. Fixing a predetermined input to the processes cannot result in a similarly predetermined outcome, not in a competency-based VET system anyway.

VET in this and every country is not linear and symmetric. It is made up of many living and breathing parts that are interrelated, and their very movement creates outcomes that are largely unpredictable – just as the modern workplace can find itself constantly readjusting its business and strategic objectives as newer and better ways are found to achieve the desired outcomes. The only way for VET to be truly effective is to acknowledge this, and recognise that holding power at the top of the tree will not empower the roots to grow strong and ensure continued life.

Traditional adult and trade training systems may be described as controlled and symmetric, but not VET. But, those who understand VET know this. It is a shame that their voice is not loud enough, or treated with enough respect, to be included in important reviews such as this one. The future of VET in this country is more the poorer because of this.