Rutherford, Phillip - 3GPM

Response:

Yes, however the first point which must be considered is that we currently consider training packages and government regulation as the ‘system’. The VET ‘system’ is much more than this. A well functioning system is comprised of the key stakeholders (employers, unions, subject matter experts etc) and industry representatives brought together to identify and agree skills needs, competency statements, and employer/industry engagement. It also involves the integration of new/enhanced skills and knowledge into the workplace, how these are adopted and applied in the achievement of business and strategic objectives, and the processes for ensuring that these objectives align with the national goals of economic growth and increased national/global market share. Then, and only then, do we consider qualifications.
If this is adopted as the purpose for the VET system then industry/employer engagement will not only be assured, it will be supported by employers and unions. To keep on thinking that all that is needed is a training package and students is to miss the point of VET altogether.
Engaging with industry means, first of all, listening to employers when they describe the skills and knowledge they need to fill the functions important to the achievement of business and strategic goals and objectives. They, after all, are the ones with both the most knowledge about the skills and knowledge required of employees of all levels, and of all stages of recruitment and career, to achieve business and, by extension, industry goals and objectives. They must also integrate their performance management system to allow these skills and knowledge to be applied, and direct them towards business and market growth. 
In the early days it was through this process that competency standards (firstly termed the ‘endorsable element’ of training packages but of late have become nothing more than curricula, in other words the ‘non-endorsable’ element – see below) were created. These describe the skills and knowledge essential to all employers who, cumulatively, make up the ‘industry’. Hence, they were ‘industry-led’. 

Response:

Yes

Response:

Limited effectiveness. Depending on the organisation conducting the industry engagement, the degree to which they seek out and listen to expert practitioners in the field can vary. Some do little more than create a training package and then tell industry what it is going to get (pretending, all the while, to be engaging with the industry concerned), while others spend a significant amount of time talking to, and more importantly listening to, employers and local businesses where graduates are going to expect to be seeking out work. Sadly, there are more in the former category than in the latter.

Response:

First of all I would suggest a return to the system of ITABs and ITCs which gave local and regional employers a greater voice in the training process. They, after all, are the ones who are expected to recruit graduates but who today find it difficult to attract workers with the skills and knowledge they require. Give them greater voice in the way in which the standards which underpin training packages are developed and they will be more likely to seek out graduates who can demonstrate that their skills and knowledge are at this level upon graduation.
The second point follows from my response to question 1 – return to the process whereby employers were more actively involved in the development of the competency standards which accurately describe the skills and knowledge essential to their workplace. I know this will upset some, but we must stop following the practices applied over the past 20 years whereby the so-called standards were aimed at industry, and not workplace, level and described those required across the whole industry rather than in the neighbourhood where graduates are going to be seeking work. My own research, coupled with significant anecdotal evidence, clearly shows that only around 40% of what is contained in training packages is usable upon graduation. And even then this deteriorates over time. 
I would suggest someone refer to the National Training Board Policy and Guidelines documents for clues on how to write competency standards properly. 

Response:

In a word, no.  The simple reason is that they do not describe the needs of industry at the ground level. 
If we return to the initial plan for the VET system we had training packages made up of two elements – the ‘endorsable’ and the ‘non-endorsable’. The ‘endorsable’ element was the standards of performance against which students and trainees would be assessed for their competence. The ‘non-endorsable’ element was a guide to the curriculum, or in some cases the curriculum itself put forward for accreditation as a complete training course. 
What this process allowed was for a mix of training, experience, volunteer work and traineeships through which the skills and knowledge were gained. Then, and this is the important element, they undertook an assessment against the competency standards – that is, the ‘endorsable’ element.
The ‘endorsable’ element was signed off by employers, unions, industry experts, and others with a stake in ensuring that the skills and knowledge applied on the job were in line with business, community and regional needs, and at a higher level were in line with the needs of local and national economy. It didn’t matter how the training detailed in the ‘non-endorsable’ element was carried out just so long as the assessment was against the standards detailed in the ‘endorsable’ element. This will enable all learning and experience, whether covered in the training or not, to be taken into account when evidence of the individual’s skills and knowledge is assessed. 
This is an incredibly simple process, and one which can be returned to in a very short space of time – especially while there are still those of us who remember how to make this happen.

Response:

No. I believe that there is very little that can be done to remedy the current approach to VET in this country. In my experience and opinion it has become so burdened down with rules and regulations that it is struggling under its own weight to move our country forward. Like an old sailing ship that is encrusted with barnacles, the VET system needs to be dry-docked and its hull scraped clean. A new crew needs to be brought on board and a new destination charted if VET in Australia is to achieve the outcomes for which the system was created.