What is the size and nature of the Australian VET workforce?

On the 22nd of April 2020, the National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER) announced the release of a report about the size and nature of the Australian vocational education and training (VET) workforce. This short report is titled, Understanding the Australian vocational education and training workforce. [1]

The contents of the report consist of:

• Executive summary and information about the survey (4 pages)
• Total number of employees in the VET workforce (3 pages)
• Profile of trainers and assessors (6 pages): including employment status, teaching qualifications, and qualifications related to field or industry
• Volunteers (4 pages).

Report findings

The survey data for this new NCVER report was collected during the first quarter of 2019. Why has it taken more than a year to process and publish the report? I suspect this report will soon be used as evidence to support government reforms as part of the VET Reform Roadmap process. [2] Also, it might be used to recommend changes to the TAE40116 Certificate IV in Training and Assessment qualification.

Size and nature of the VET workforce

The NCVER report estimates about 250,000 people are employed in the VET workforce. And about 72,000 of these people are employed by Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) as trainers and assessors.

The actual number of employees is much larger because the survey data did not include people working for schools and enterprises that are not RTOs. There are many employees delivering training and assessment services under auspicing arrangements (working with an RTO rather than for an RTO). I would estimate that there is at least 100,000 trainers and assessors in the VET workforce. And I think this is a conservative estimate. These numbers may have changed recently due to how some RTOs have responded to the COVID-19 situation. Let's look at some of the numbers that are described in the NCVER report about the size and nature of the VET workforce.

I find it astonishing that about 70% of the VET workforce perform roles other than trainers and assessors. That is massive. And it is a massive overhead cost to support the delivery of training and assessment services. Do we really need all the executives, senior managers, service delivery managers, coordinators, marketing people, business development people, recruiters, quality people, support services people, administration people and others? We need some but we may not need them all. Do we need TAFEs from one state competing for work against TAFEs in another state? And do we need a TAFE competing against other TAFEs within the same state? This seems to be a waste of government money.

The data has identified a sizable number of trainers and assessors are connected with School RTOs. It is common to hear about TAFEs and private RTOs, but VET in Schools is significant. Also, I suspect that enterprise trainers, industry trainers, workplace trainers, apprentice supervisors and others associated with work placements are under-represented by the survey data.

Non-permanent employees include casuals, sessionals and people employed under fixed-term or short-term contracts. On page 15 of the NCVER report it states, "The incidence of casual employment for VET trainers and assessors is higher than in the general labour market". The report goes on to represent casualisation as a problem. I will address this later in this article.

I have extracted the following key messages from reading the NCVER report:

• There is an unbelievable number of volunteers
• Casualisation of the VET workforce is a problem
• There is an emphasis on teaching, rather than training
• Professional development and professionalisation should be addressed.

Number of volunteers

On page 20 of the NCVER report, it states the number of volunteers across all RTOs is estimated at 177,596. This is an unbelievably big number of volunteers. What do all these volunteers do? On page 21 of the NCVER report, it states a total of 6,841 volunteers (or 3.9%) were trainers or assessors. That is a smaller number.

It is surprising that one of the three themes featured in the NCVER report is 'volunteers'. Why are volunteers given such prominence? More prominence than enterprise trainers. More prominence than school teachers delivering VET programs. And more prominence than the massive number of employees in the VET workforce that are not trainers and assessors. Is there a hidden agenda behind the highlighting of volunteers?

It seems that there has been a concerted effort to highlight volunteers in the VET workforce. Over the past few years, the Education Industry Reference Committee (IRC) has promoted that the TAE40116 Certificate IV in Training and Assessment qualification should be changed because it is unsuitable for some trainers and assessors. And volunteer trainers and assessors working for Community RTOs are used as the example. However, I would argue, that the role responsibilities and work performed by a volunteer trainer and assessor is the same, or extremely similar, as for a non-volunteer trainer and assessor.

Is the NCVER report going to be used by the Education IRC to make an unnecessary recommendation? A TAE qualification just for volunteers is unwarranted. And a major change to the current TAE40116 Certificate IV in Training and Assessment qualification is unwarranted. The competencies and responsibilities of a trainer and assessor are basically the same regardless of the type of RTO they work for, or work with. And the current TAE Certificate IV qualification and TAE skill sets are adequate. If you dont' agree with me, you may like to read other LinkedIn articles that I have published covering this topic:

• What stops people from getting their TAE40116 qualification? Is it time to change it?
• Why does the TAE40116 need to be changed?
• Are RTO trainers and industry trainers homogeneous?
• Are RTO trainers and TAFE teachers homogeneous?
• Changes to the TAE Training Package: what next?

Casualisation

Casualisation is covered in the executive summary, and on page 15 of the NCVER report. It states that, "... non-permanent employment in the VET sector is high with particularly high use of casuals for trainer and assessor roles ... casualisation of trainer/assessor employment may restrict opportunities to develop teaching and assessment ability with potential impacts on the quality of training delivery. This suggests there may be a need to identify appropriate ways of enabling adequate professional development for casual and other non-permanent employees". What does this mean?

First, I want to try to interpret what is meant by, "restrict[ed] opportunities to develop teaching and assessment ability with potential impacts on the quality of training delivery". And later in this LinkedIn article under the heading, 'Professional development and professionalisation', I will try to make sense of "identify[ing] appropriate ways of enabling adequate professional development".

Restricted opportunities to develop teaching and assessment ability

What is meant by the 'restricted opportunities to develop teaching and assessment ability'? In the context of the statement, I think this implies that the capability of a casual trainer is less than a permanent trainer. From my experience, the capability of a trainer and the quality of their training delivery is not determined by their employment status. I have witnessed casual trainers delivering excellent quality training, and I have witnessed permanent trainers delivering poor quality training. Casualation is not necessarily a problem, nor does it automatically lead to poor quality of training delivery.

However, exploitative payment arrangements of casual trainers may lead to problems. Some RTOs only pay their casuals for the hours they deliver training but do not pay for the hours associated with assessments, administration, planning and preparation. This may lead to the casual trainer minimising their time and efforts outside of the hours paid to delivery training, and this may have an impact on quality, in particular the quality of assessment. Having said this, there are many factors that have an impact of the quality of assessment.

Why has the NCVER report inserted comments made by the Productivity Commission in 2011? [3] It does not relate to the data about size and nature of the VET workforce. What is the hidden agenda? Is the report going to be used support a government reform to raise the quality of training by improving the capability of trainers and assessors? Often trainers and assessors are falsely blamed or incorrectly identified as being the cause of poor quality training and assessment services. There are many factors that have an impact of the quality of training and assessment services.

Factors that have an impact on training and assessment quality

During 2017, I conducted research about factors that have an impact on assessment quality. My research found that the assessment methods and tools being used had the greatest impact on assessment quality; greater than the capability of trainers and assessors that is described by their assessment practice. The following graph illustrates this point.

Also, my research findings identified that the greatest cause of poor quality assessment was trainers and assessors being given insufficient time and resources. The skills or capability of trainers and assessors were not an area of great concern. The following graph illustrates this point.

In 2017 I made the statement, "Australia's VET decision-makers need to understand that the current problems with poor quality assessment are not caused by unskilled trainers. The solution is with RTO management to ensure adequate time and resources is allocated to the delivery of quality assessment services." [4]

Casualisation by itself does not cause poor quality training and assessment services. Not all RTOs are poorly managed, but I believe that the quality of training and assessment services would be improved if the way some RTOs are managed was improved, and this includes improving coordination and administration. From my experience, I have come across RTO executives, RTO managers and RTO administration people that do not understand VET, and do not understand the training programs being delivered. This is the area of improvement that should be targeted instead of always trying to fix and improve trainers and assessors who may not be the cause of the problems.

Teaching ≠ Training

First impressions are lasting. First impressions are important. The front cover of the report has a photo that seems to depict 'teaching'. The image (see below) has what looks like a teacher in a classroom with students.

What is wrong with this image? For me, the image represents school and a traditional view of teaching. For me, the image does not represent what VET is, or what VET should be. It does not represent industry or the workplace. It does not portray technology. And the students sitting at desks in rows does not show contemporary training methods. It shows the students as passive learner, not engaged learners.

Some people may disagree with me, however, I believe 'teaching' is not the same as 'training'. I believe VET is, or should be, Australia's training system. It is not Australia's teaching system. And I believe that the recent shift of Australia's VET system towards being tertiary education is creating, and will continue to create, poor quality training.

I have written LinkedIn articles about this topic in the past. For example, Is it time to save VET?, published in 2018.

The NCVER report reinforces the idea that VET is about teaching because it refers to 'teaching qualifications', rather than training and assessment qualifications. Also, it refers to 'teaching quality'. This re-positioning of 'training and assessing' as equivalent to 'teaching' can lead to the idea of professionalisation of the VET workforce. Teaching is a profession. Is training a profession? Teachers, doctors, dentists, engineers, lawyers, accountants, scientists and some other degree-qualified occupations are professionals. Is a trainer a 'professional'?

Professional development and professionalisation

The NCVER report says that there is "a need to identify appropriate ways of enabling adequate professional development for casual and other non-permanent employees". Why should the professional development of a casual and other non-permanent employees be different to a permanent employee? The Standards for RTOs specifies the requirements for the professional development of trainers and assessors, and this relates to all trainers and assessors regardless of their employment or volunteer status.

What does "enabling adequate professional development" mean? It is very difficult to understand what is meant. Currently, RTOs have the responsibility to ensure that their trainers and assessors undertake adequate and appropriate professional development. I have a suspicious mind, and I think the NCVER report may be supporting the profesionalisation of trainers and TAFE teachers. This should include school teachers, enterprise trainers and volunteers who deliver training and assessment service for, or on behalf of, an RTO.

I am concerned that professionalisation would require all trainers and assessors to join a professional association and undertake approved compulsory professional development (basically paying money to do their current job). I have published many LinkedIn articles covering this topic:

• VET Reform Roadmap: When do we push the panic button? (see under the heading 'Improve the skills of trainers')
• Recent recommendations to enhance the capabilities of the VET workforce (see under the heading 'Recommendation 3. Professionalisation of the VET workforce'
• Are you against compulsory trainer registration?
• Is it time to say 'no' to compulsory trainer registration?

The problem with making training a profession is the need for the 'professional trainer' to pay to belong to a professional association. This adds no value to the individual trainer, and it does not change to skill level of the VET workforce. I am totally against trainers needing to pay to do their job.

This idea of professioanlisation may get implemented as 'trainer registration'. If you are a trainer, do you want to pay an annual licence fee to continue doing your job?

In conclusion

The NCVER report has more than just the numbers that describe the size and nature of the VET workforce. The contents of this report will be used.

How will the NCVER report be used? Will it be used to justify government reforms to soon be announced by the VET Reform Roadmap? Will it be used by the Education IRC to justify changes to the TAE Training Package?

If you are a trainer and assessor, please speak up if you are against:

• Compulsory trainer registration and the payment of an annual registration fee
• Compulsory attendance at a prescribed quantity of professional development (PD) events delivered by approved VET PD providers, and the compulsory payment to attend these events that may not be paid by an RTO
• Another change to the TAE Certificate IV qualification and the potential impact; such as, more time, cost and frustration to do another TAE Upgrade!

You have a chance to say something now, before it is too late. And please consider 'liking', 'commenting' or 'sharing' this LinkedIn article so that others can join the discussion and debate about future VET reforms and changes to the TAE Training Package.

References

[1] https://www.ncver.edu.au/research-and-statistics/publications/all-publications/understanding-the-australian-vocational-education-and-training-workforce accessed 22 April 2020

[2] https://www.employment.gov.au/vet-reform-roadmap accessed 22 April 2020

[3] https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/education-workforce-vocational/report accessed 26 April 2020

[4] https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/whats-cause-poor-quality-assessment-alan-maguire/ accessed 26 April 2020

[5] https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/what-stops-people-from-getting-tae40116-qualification-alan-maguire/ accessed 26 April 2020

[6] https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/why-does-tae40116-need-changed-alan-maguire/ accessed 26 April 2020

[7] https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/rto-trainers-industry-homogeneous-alan-maguire/ accessed 26 April 2020

[8] https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/rto-trainers-tafe-teachers-homogeneous-alan-maguire/ accessed 26 April 2020

[9] https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/changes-tae-training-package-what-next-alan-maguire/ accessed 26 April 2020

[10] https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/vet-reform-roadmap-when-do-we-push-panic-button-alan-maguire/ accessed 26 April 2020

[11] https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/recent-recommendations-enhance-capabilities-vet-alan-maguire/ accessed 26 April 2020

[12] https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/you-against-compulsory-trainer-registration-alan-maguire/ accessed 26 April 2020

[13] https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/time-say-compulsory-trainer-registration-alan-maguire/ accessed 26 April 2020

[14] https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/time-save-vet-alan-maguire/ accessed 26 April 2020