Rivas, Coleen - Raspberry Training and Consulting

Response:

The VET system was established to meet the needs of industry and employers. In its earlier form, there was far less red tape and much greater flexibility in training packages which allowed RTOs to flexibly deliver to meet employers needs. Unfortunately, there are some employers and RTOs who took advantage of this 'flexibility' - often resulting in sub-par short duration programs that achieved financial rewards for both parties, but not necessarily the depth of skill that qualifications or skill-sets aim to achieve. So now everything VET is pretty much inflexible - especially training packages.
Training packages are developed with the support of Industry Reference Committees, and sometimes, where greater depths of expertise are required, Technical Advisor Groups (TAG). I have been involved in the periphery of qualification development, and I note that much of the contributions come from larger organisations who have the human resource capability to offer support to the VET sector through IRCs and TAGs. I believe that there is however an underrepresentation of Small to Medium Enterprises (SMEs) on many of these panels.
The effect of this is blatantly obvious in how qualifications are built and packaged. Much of the content of training packages is aimed exclusively at large business. 
As I write this, I'm pausing from developing resources for BSBTWK301 Use inclusive work practices, a core unit in the BSB30120 Certificate III in Business, and at the top of my head at this moment. While I think inclusive work practices are vital in all workplaces, the unit is simply not written for all workplaces. The local mechanic who has hired a receptionist as a trainee just does not have the resources in the workplace to support the delivery of this core, compulsory unit based on its current format. 
For example, 'ma and pa mechanics' probably don't have diversity policies and procedures(assessment requirement),  and in reality (because we need to live in reality sometimes....), that business is not going to be developing a plan for inclusive work practices (ie Diversity and Inclusion Plan). And that's just one unit. I'm pretty confident they don't have a Strategic Plan, or all the other policies and procedures that training packages require. 
I'm not saying these key skills are not important. I believe the aim of this unit is on target, and many other units are the same - but they're built for big business, regulated industries and government departments. They are not built so that they can be effectively contextualised to the needs of SMEs.
So, as an instructional designer, I spend much of my time writing 'pretend' policies, procedures and plans just so the student can get qualified. It doesn't help the employer, the student is learning and being assessed on items that are not relevant to the workplace. The products we are offering to SMEs just don't meet their needs. They are not built to meet their needs.
SME's are excluded from industry consultation because they are small. They do not have the time or the human resources to be involved. They're busy doing business, not getting cudos for being involved in an IRC or other industry consultation. Because of that, training packages are written for the big businesses and bureaucracies. 
Small business employs nearly 50% of the Australian workforce. That's 50% of employers for whom training packages don't fit. 
SMEs need significant encouragement and support to be involved in these processes. They do not have time to volunteer, so they will need financial incentives to be involved. But if the Government keeps ignoring them, then VET will continue to suffer.

Response:

Yes

Response:

As an instructional designer who develops learning and assessment for the VET sector, the current arrangements are making my life difficult.

I cannot simply write assessments assuming that workplace documents will be available when up to 50% of the students who will use these assessments will be unable to access workplace documents and systems that the training packages require.

That means I have had to become a policy, procedure and organisational document creator as well. I need to create every single document listed in a training package so I can be sure that my tools can actually be implemented in the workplace.

I do see the value in these systems, and having worked in the VET sector for many years, I too am used to having those processes around me. But today I am a micro business, and I may just need to employ a trainee admin assistant to help me - but I don't have the resources in my business to support that trainee to be qualified. (well I do - I have files of simulated documents - but that's obviously a unique situation). 

I don't need a trainee who can help me write a Diversity and Inclusion Plan, but that is a core unit for a business traineeship, so I'd have to pay costs for my trainee to do that unit. How would that support me as a small business owner?

This is exactly the result of SMEs being excluded from industry consultation. 

Response:

As I have already advocated, SMEs need to be involved in these collaborations, and the only way to make that happen is for the government to incentivise their participation.

Training packages need to be more flexible, both in packaging, and in the content of units of competency. More flexible packaging would allow for more credit transfers and building of skills and credentials. I was reviewing the new LGA package released earlier this month, and congratulate the SSO for their intelligent packaging. Instead of creating duplicated units, they have imported existing units from other packages and only developed new units that are specific requirements for local government. This methodology makes it far more efficient for workers to transfer their credentials and skills across jobs and sectors and reduces the burden on RTOs in continually developing new learning and assessment tools.

When industry comes to the table, they need to be educated on the 'bigger picture' of VET. Industry representatives will advocate for the needs of their business, but may not see the issues that can be created by siloed training packages that are too tailored to be transferable. 

There are key skills that cover all industries, but they may be developed exclusively for one industry sector without consideration of how the same skills are utilised in different sectors. Its not the skill that isn't transferable (eg customer service), but if the training package has been built in a siloed environment, then the product becomes non-transferable. Maybe there should be more consideration of the development of general skills - maybe on the BSB package for example - so that broader industries are involved in the development of those units so they are developed in a way that is transferable across industry (and varying sizes of businesses).

Response:

I have already covered this in previous questions, but as a brief summary:

1. Training packages are built to meet the needs of large business, not small business
2. Small businesses have different needs than large business, and these needs are not being met
3. Unnecessary duplication of competencies across training packages results in credentials not being transferable and occurs because they are developed in siloed industry environments
4. Training packages need to be more flexible so they can be tailored to the needs of all businesses (including 'ma and pa' enterprises)
5. Provide incentives for SMEs to be involved in industry consultation
6. Develop universal skills UOCs (eg customer service, team work etc) with the input of multiple industries so that they can be used across multiple packages effectively

Response:

I'm so sick of these reforms that go nowhere (other than create more red tape). Yes we need regulation, but its time there was serious reform. Not reform every second year.

There are just too many cooks in the kitchen, and they all seem to be bureaucrats and representatives of large businesses. No one is listening to small businesses, the people on the ground, the trainers and assessors who do the job, the compliance managers who have to stick it all together with duct tape.

We respond to these reform surveys, and our responses go unheard. At the end of the day it will be a bureaucratic or political decision, and I believe neither of those groups are qualified to make those calls as long as they live in their echo chambers.