- Related consultation
- Submission received
-
-
Does the role of industry need to be strengthened or expanded across the VET system? Why/why not?
- What does industry engagement mean to you?
- How can industry be encouraged to connect with and use the VET system? What does this look like?
- Are there any roles for industry in the VET system that are not covered or outlined in the case for change?
-
Response:
No response provided.
Are you aware of the current industry-leadership arrangements led by the Australian Industry and Skills Commission?
-
Response:
Yes
-
How effective are the current industry engagement arrangements in VET in meeting your needs?
- What works well and what could be improved? How could it be improved?
- How well are you (or your organisation) represented by these arrangements?
- How well do current arrangements allow collaboration across industry sectors on common workforce and skills needs?
-
Response:
No response provided.
What can be done to drive greater collaboration across industries to broaden career pathways for VET graduates and maximise the workforce available to employers?
- How can workers be equipped with skills that can be applied across different jobs?
- How can industry support this through the VET system?
- How can we break down silos and improve collaboration across industry groups?
-
Response:
No response provided.
Are qualifications fit-for-purpose in meeting the needs of industry and learners now and into the future? Why/why not?
- Are the different needs of industry and learners effectively considered in designing qualifications in the current system? What works well and why?
- Are there issues or challenges with the way qualifications are currently designed? What are they and what could be done to address these?
-
Response:
The current system of qualification design does consider the needs of industry, however the way in which the development of qualifications is guided can see significant involvement from a small number of ‘big players’ that may result in qualification design not ultimately being aligned to the needs of industry more broadly. An opportunity for greater involvement in the guidance qualification design process from RTO stakeholders (from the beginning, rather than providing feedback on drafts / cases for endorsement) may also be beneficial. RTOs are at the coalface of implementation for qualifications - working closely with industry and learners, and as dual industry experts (VET sector and industry), are uniquely placed for an expanded involvement in the process. In terms of the qualification design and release cycle, an issue that constantly causes a level of inconvenience is the release date of training packages. Whilst it is acknowledged that not all RTOs work on a Semester intake cycle, many do, meaning transition to new versions of qualifications is required around July and February each year (where applicable). This means, considering a standard 12-month transition period, if a new version of a qualification is released in March or September (for example), the 12-month transition period is effectively reduced considerably. It is proposed that set transition end dates (twice per year) in January and July would be beneficial in ensuring RTOs with semester based delivery are not disadvantaged when transitioning students.
-
Are there any further issues in relation to improving industry engagement in the VET sector that you would like to provide feedback on?
-
Response:
No response provided.