Tilstra, Hans - Private contribution

Related consultation
Submissions - Skills Reform: Improving industry engagement and reforming qualifications in Vocational Education and Training discussion paper
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:

Australia is not lacking in industry expertise, but could do with facilitated development of a coherent eco-system. To quote Dwight D. Eisenhower, " If a problem cannot be solved, enlarge it. " 

As a case in point, we have a growing need for cross-industry ICT skills. 

What would happen if 'connect the dots' professionals from organisations such as Salesforce and Burning Glass would help Australia's IRC ICT (see link below) and SFIA join the dots of relevant (1) micro-credentials, (2) Units of Competency and (3) HE qualifications?

https://www.aisc.net.au/content/information-and-communications-technology-industry-reference-committee

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:

One perspective on defining VET industry engagement is how these are organized in a taxonomic sense. 

Australia has 67 Industry Reference Committees (IRC), clustering into six Skill Service Organisations (SSO). 
This grouping is best described as a Venn diagram, with some SSO's reasonably defined, such as Artibus (construction and property), IBSA (manufacturing and sustainability), Skills IQ ("people facing skills"), Australian Industry Standards (supply chain skills). What is not clear is PwC's cross sector skills and Skills Impact's odd socks category. 

From a curriculum design perspective, it is unclear what rationale led to these industry groupings. One could argue there is 'breadth' and "flexibility", but it would be difficult to claim coherence. 

The organisation is 'yellow taxi' in an 'uber world'. In 2021 it would be reasonable for each skill or combination of skills to be part of a generative platform of data in which Units of Competency would be anchored in meta data such as ANZSCO and ANZIC, DDC3.  This could provide a systemic and quantitative grounding for collaboration across industry sectors.

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:

Australia's silos are between HE and VET, with some endeavours by accrediting organisations such as the ACS, AHPRA to bridge these worlds if asked.

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:

Australia's Training Packages data provides a great starting point, but there is a need for a 2.0. 

Units of Competency can be made comparable to micro-credentials, and aligned structurally with the competencies used in HE. 

As a case in point, in the health domains, the HLT Training Package could be aligned with the Threshold Learning Outcomes as identified by O'Keefe, M. F., Henderson, A., & Pitt, R. (2011). Health, medicine and veterinary science: Learning and teaching academic standards statement. Australian Learning and Teaching Council.

In the IT domain, the SFIA's standards could be readily aligned with the ICT Training Package, drawing on knowledge management experts from organisations such as Burning Glass and Salesforce.

Are there any further issues in relation to improving industry engagement in the VET sector that you would like to provide feedback on?

Response:

What gets measured gets done. VET's key measures are student completion rates and employer satisfaction. RTO performance is distorted to achieve good scores in these two measures. 

A focus on student completion rates inadvertently nudges collusive mediocrity, and employer satisfaction is not without it's unintended consequences either. 

Arguably, Ontario's ten proposed performance based measures are more ambitious in terms of expecting an ROI for more stakeholders:  https://www.ontario.ca/page/all-college-and-university-strategic-mandate-agreements