Schmidt, Teressa - STEPS Group Australia

Response:

The nature of industry engagement varies and is dependent upon provider and industry activities.  For STEPS, as a not-for-profit Enterprise RTO, industry engagement is embedded in the organisation's daily operations and values.  There are two levels of industry engagement which need to be considered: the macro-consultation which occurs at the broader, collective industry level (to inform the development of Training Packages) and the micro-consultation that must take place between the RTO and local industry representatives to ensure training adequately prepares students for work locally, while still providing transferable knowledge and skills through the generic curriculum represented by the Training Package. 
Encouraging an already overwhelmed and under-resourced industry sector to connect with and engage in consultation of education and training provision can be challenging. Although we are an industry employer organisation as well as an RTO, we still seek to expand our knowledge of the broader industry. The most effective means to do this in our experience, is through partnerships we have established with other related  organisations .  These partnerships and relationships vary, but often relate to (for example) the provision of training (including training for foundation and/or industry skills) and to student vocational placement and employment activities.   
The value of our status as a not-for-profit Enterprise RTO is significant and should not be underestimated.  STEPS own experience as an employer and provider of care and support for people with disabilities has influenced the education and training provided through our own RTO operations, and ensures graduates are well prepared to offer appropriate and safe care and support when placed and employed in the industry, or within our own organisation. 

Response:

Yes

Response:

It is important to ensure that a broad range of industry representatives are consulted and given a 'voice' when developing Training Packages intended to meet the education and training needs of an entire sector.  This is not currently the case.  
There also needs to be ample flexibility built into curriculum and packaging of qualifications, as 'one size does not fit all', even in relatively homogeneous industries. The Community Services Training Package, for example, is intended to represent a diverse group of employing industries.  How well it can meet the needs of this group given the often prescriptive, inflexible requirements inherent in modern Training Packages however, is arguable. 

Response:

More flexible funding arrangements could assist, particularly in industries which high recruitment needs.  For example, a funded pathway for students which allows for the achievement of an introductory skills set, followed by a work-based education and training strategy to complete the remainder of a qualification would meet the needs of job seekers and employers more quickly.  While this model shares some of the components of a traditional traineeship or apprenticeship pathway, it emphasises the achievement of a critical 'first stage' of training accompanied by a flexible model of training delivered alongside (but not within) a job role. Where traineeships and apprenticeships rely heavily upon employer obligations (which can be prohibitive in industries already grappling with high vacancy rates), this suggestion intends that the responsibility for education and training remains predominantly with the training provider.  An associated challenge that needs further investigation and consultation relates to the provision of ongoing development for existing workers. In our experience, employers are frequently unwilling or unable (due to staffing concerns) to release workers to participate in necessary training.  Developing a response to this challenge will provide an opportunity to increase the knowledge and skills of workers across the entire industry sector, and given the issues identified by recent investigations into the Aged Care sector (for example), it is a challenge which requires urgent attention. 

Another challenge faced by training providers, particularly in the health and community sectors, relates to the provision of vocational placement places. Vocational placement is a critical requirement for the completion of many community services and health qualifications, however competition for these places is high, and in many cases, becoming costly.  Placement costs which cannot be borne by the training provider (including costs to employ a facilitator to supervise the placement activities) must be passed onto the student.  This in turn places some students at risk due to issues of accessibility and equity, denying students without the means to pay the opportunity to complete their qualification and realise the associated improved employment outcomes.

  

Response:

The complexity of training packages and the packaging of qualifications are a barrier to participation.  Pathways through and between qualifications and their relevance to vocational outcomes should be more explicitly communicated and simplified. 

The prescriptive nature of existing training packages can represent an unnecessary (and often costly) barrier to training providers and students without an accompanying increase in benefit to industry and employers.  Greater consultation with a wider variety of industry representatives and an emphasis on flexibility rather than rigidity of assessment requirements would improve the ability of training providers to respond to changing industry needs (rapidly changing, particularly given the influence of advancements in digital technology and the internet). 

Response:

Although a relatively small organisation, STEPS Group Australia is a recognised industry employer and not-for-profit enterprise RTO.  We would welcome any future opportunity to engage in consultation on the development of the VET curriculum and the provision of VET.
It is also important for any discussion on VET to consider the circumstances of students who participate in vocational education with the aim of working in the industries it serves.  There are significant differences in the funding attributed to education and training which takes place in universities and that provided by the VET sector.  This disparate model frequently disadvantages VET students, reduces the appeal of VET qualifications and the related vocational outcomes, and importantly, creates additional barriers for participants from lower socio-economic groups who wish to access VET. 
VET students frequently require additional LLN and other supports in order to achieve the knowledge and skills required by the Training Package. VET often represents a 'second chance' pathway and frequently provides a pathway to further education and training in addition to its primary 'training for work' function.  To achieve these outcomes, a more considered approach is required which allows all Australians the opportunity to achieve their education, employment and life goals.