Stalled VET Reform

Australian Qualifications Design Reform seems to be ‘off the rails’ considering commentary and feedback from yesterday’s Industry Skills Australia (ISA) stakeholder briefing webinar.

ISA is one of ten Jobs and Skills Councils (JSCs) contracted to the Australian Government and working with Jobs and Skills Australia (JSA) on the management of, and reform of Australia’s Vocational Education and Training (VET) Training Packages – the qualification and Unit of Competency building blocks that underpin education and training provision for Australian industry.

JSCs are the replacement for the previous Skills Service Organisations (SSO) model. More than just an acronym change - as ISA highlights, when the SSO model was in place, ‘SSOs were active competitors for training package projects so were disincentivised to work together on cross-industry areas.’

Now there is an ‘enormous amount of collaboration needed between JSCs.’ We ‘need to ensure that nothing slips through the cracks and that there is no demarcation between JSCs.’

It is hard to see how industry skills need segmented across ten JSC’s is conducive to enormous collaboration. Although the enormous $442 million four-year budget might assist.

Issues with the existing VET qualifications system were described by ISA as ‘one size fits all doesn’t work.’ A damning statement on the last 30 years of the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) – a framework well understood and embedded in industry and the community alike, aligned to similar qualifications frameworks in most Western countries.

The current approach is stated to have ‘too much prescription’ with ‘more flexibility’ and ‘more transferability’ being key goals of any reformed approach.

There’s no doubt that training package documentation can be improved, but issues are hardly surprising given that the current Department of Education and Workplace Relations (DEWRs) training package development process only requires less than 10% of industry standards in some cases to be checked before endorsement and use.

Concerningly, ISA’s statements included that the current VET system has ‘too much focus on performance.’ Given the purpose of VET is to deliver skills with an occupational focus, one wonders how too much performance could ever be enough?

With the Australian Government touting a “Future Made in Australia” including the mooted AUKUS nuclear powered submarines and nuclear industry, how will this nation-building challenge will be met with industry training reducing a focus on performance?

The reformed approach is stated to move ‘beyond competency-based’ delivery and there are ‘no iron-clad rules.’ JSCs have been asked to ‘look at a post competency-based model’ in a ‘purpose driven approach.’

This is despite the Qualifications Reform Design Group ’s own acknowledgement that Commonwealth, State and Territory Skills Ministers have “directed that Units of Competency remain the building block for VET in Australia.”

The competency-based training and assessment model, initially developed and invested in the United States in the 1960s as part of the nation building focus of ‘putting a man on the moon,’ has served Australia well in the last 30 years and is typically seen globally as a world class approach. So much so that the Australian approach, including Units of competency (industry competency standards) have been adopted by multiple other countries.

Indeed, the current global shift towards competency-based training reflects a growing international emphasis on ensuring that learners acquire the specific skills and competencies needed to meet industry demands and adapt to changing job markets. It is unfathomable to consider Australia moving away from this model at the same time as many other countries are just adopting this robust approach.

ISA seems to have a tough task – like the other JSCs – in assisting the progress of this evidently flawed qualification design reform approach.

The JSC comments that the allocated ‘short timeframes don’t allow for the level of stakeholder consultation we would like.’

This is an unfortunately all too common aspect of the DEWRs approach to sector reform, with repeated and complaints from sector stakeholders that consultation is inadequate to support stakeholder engagement and robust reform activities.?

Concerns have repeatedly been raised regarding rushed and simply absent consultation with VET sector representatives given the sheer scale of the proposed reform.

Yet the JSCs persevere. They are a $442 million four-year taxpayer investment and must progress work. ISA notes that it will ‘test what we have been asked to test.’

The Qualifications Design Reform Group have ‘requested that we take a “blank sheet” approach.’ Despite the fact that ‘Units of Competency are already prescribed’ for the ISA industry areas and occupations, ISA is reviewing relevant qualifications for occupational roles and ‘starting from scratch.’

And what do the industries ISA represent and serve think of the progress of this reform?

ISA stated clearly that ‘stakeholders don’t have a desire for radical change.’

Indeed, the overwhelming desire for qualifications design reform is much more pronounced from employer bodies like TAFE Directors Australia (TDA) , that has repeatedly called for a shift away from competency-based training approaches. One wonders that it might be easier if TAFE campus delivery simply had to manage a general education approach – lest what that might mean for skills performance for Australia’s industries.

But ISA is focused. It intends to use the testing activities to “get examples from industry on why it’s a dumb idea.”

What would industry like to see happen? ISA was pleased to also share comment on this topic. Industry ‘would like to see increased regulatory activity and sanctions’ of VET providers who are not delivering competency-based training appropriately.

And there is the crux of the issue for Australia’s VET sector. It doesn’t matter what the training products are, or what the regulatory standards require, if the governments’ regulators aren’t addressing sector issues.

With the unfortunate complexity that the VET sector currently has three regulators, with the embattled main National Regulator continuing to struggle to recover from the 2020 ‘Rapid Review’ that effectively hibernated its oversight and enforcement activities.

Even with the increased audit activity of the last two years, the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) is still auditing at less than 25% the rate of 2017 levels.

Latest annual report highlights national VET regulator struggles - The Mandarin

So, what does ISA see as possible improvements and solutions to come out of this evidently doomed testing of qualifications reform project activities?

Well VET ‘Providers are not using Companion Volumes as much as we like.’

Companion Volumes are essential resources designed to support the implementation and interpretation of training packages. They are developed to provide additional information and guidance to Registered Training Organisations (RTOs), trainers, assessors, and other stakeholders involved in the delivery and assessment of VET qualifications.

Many VET sector stakeholders might agree that Companion Volumes are poorly used. As the government considers the documents “non-endorsed” components of our documented training package framework, there is inbuilt connotation that they are optional in usage.

ISA goes further, stating that current Companion Volumes are ‘too administrative’ in their approach – despite this being counter to their purpose and description.

ISA’s solution? A second Companion Volume document. ‘Expanded guidance for providers is needed.’ We will look at ‘developing an extra ‘Companion Volume’ that is less administrative and provides more delivery guidance.’

It is unclear how a second Companion Volume will ‘reduce prescription’ or support ‘more flexibility’ in qualifications delivery approaches.

Or how, if VET providers are not using the current existing one Volume, they will be better inclined to use two.

ISA also notes that, with the push to use less, transferable Industry Standards documents overall in the national VET system, there is a ‘need to look at how to put information into Assessment Conditions where units are applicable to multiple industry contexts.’ A further example of how less prescription, more flexibility and more transferability will be able to be achieved with more information in more documents.

The VET sector has an unfortunately long history of document and information duplication with the goal to be ‘less prescriptive’ and ‘more flexible.’ From the fated 2012 ‘streamlining’ of splitting Units of Competency into two documents (now Units of Competency and associated Assessment Requirements) – along the way losing hugely useful and contextual guidance information (such as Range Statements) - to the revised Standards for RTOs (due for imminent release) that have been “consolidated” into not one but three separate documents.

It is as if the meaning of English words does not apply in VET.

ISA also had some side commentary on the mooted National Skills Taxonomy (NST). The proposed NST is an enigma given in recent years, millions in taxpayer funds has been spent building and implementing the Australian Skills Classification (ASC).

The ISA team are ‘unsure if the NST will cover VET.’

The purpose of a new NST is already questionable, before the exclusion of the main part of the skills system is considered! But it is understandable that the ISA team might not be across the NST detail – this is yet another area of poor consultation practice with DEWR receiving feedback from numerous stakeholders, including JSC(s), that adequate consultation workshops were not available to support key stakeholders’ effective participation.

And that the end of all this machinery of government?

ISA advises that the Qualifications Design Reform Group will provide final advice to Skills Ministers in October this year – an incredibly short timeframe considering where reform activities are might now.

With ISA commenting that there is ‘likely be no outcomes this year.’

Given the state of VET reform, industry may well be thinking there is likely no effective improvement outcomes for years to come.