The trend towards market-oriented training systems gives an increasingly prominent role to the private sector. Enterprises, in particular, are expected to undertake a proactive role in training. Conversely, the traditional role of the State is evolving from government-led and government-owned training systems towards creating an enabling environment for enterprises and individuals, employers and workers, to invest and actively participate in a collective training effort.
Partnerships and strategic alliances between the interested parties have become the key strategy to improve the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, equity and sustainability of training policies, systems and programmes. Training is increasingly conceived and promoted as a cooperative effort in which the various relevant institutions in the public and private sectors must participate and share responsibilities. Moreover, the partners concerned are being called upon to contribute to the overall training effort, and to articulate their inputs, making the best possible use of their respective strengths and comparative advantages.
In practical terms, only a few countries have set up a coherent systemic framework and appropriate incentives for these partnerships to flourish on a large scale. Nevertheless, there is already an assortment of innovative and interesting experiences throughout the world which offer options and lessons for promoting public/private alliances in training.
In order to capture the nature, range, and extent of innovations, the constraints faced and opportunities created by these partnerships, the Training Policies and Systems Branch (POLFORM) of the ILO undertook an extensive research programme "Strategic Training Partnerships between State and enterprises". The work between 1995 - 1997 included case studies covering 26 experiences in 14 countries from various regions: Australia, Chile, Denmark, France, Germany, India, Ireland, Ivory Coast, Japan, Malaysia, South Africa, Spain, United Kingdom, United States. Based on these experiences, extensive review of literature and discussions on the subject at national and international levels, analytical, conceptual and policy papers were elaborated.
Preliminary results of the research programme were presented and discussed at numerous seminars and conferences including two major ILO regional meetings, one for Asian countries ("Asian Experiences in Strategic Partnerships between Enterprises and the State", Chiba, Japan, December 1995, in collaboration with the Asian and Pacific Skills Development Programme, APSDEP), and one for Latin American and Caribbean countries ("Strategic Alliances in Training", Santiago de Chile, May 1997, in collaboration with the Inter-American Research and Documentation Center, CINTERFOR).
The research programme also provided a contribution to the ILO Enterprise Forum (Geneva, November, 1996), on the theme "Training for Employability".
The collection of papers produced under this research programme are listed at the back of this document as Training Partnership Papers. They are available in English, French and Spanish from the documentation service of the Employment and Training Department.
The results of the work accomplished in this area, and the experiences, concepts and messages conveyed, have raised considerable interest and contributed to demonstrate possible avenues for innovative ways of rebalancing the roles and responsibilities of the private and public sectors in training. Hopefully, the lessons learned from these experiences will contribute towards building trust and fostering cooperation between the two sectors, stimulating their participation and promoting the best use of their respective strengths in training. It should also help to lay the basis for improving awareness and institutional capacity for collaboration and joint ventures on human resources development and training among a wider span of institutions and interested parties in the public and private sectors.
The variety and dynamism in this innovative and promising area is phenomenal and deserves an on-going effort in accumulating, analyzing and exchanging information, and raising debate at the country, regional and international levels. With this aim, the scope of the programme on Strategic Partnerships in Training will be broadened in the coming years. Readers are encouraged to contact the Training Policies and Systems Branch for further exchange of information and experiences on this theme.
María Angélica Ducci
Chief
Training Policies and Systems Branch
Employment and Training Department
The Australian system of vocational education and training is very complex. This is partly because vocational education and training in Australia is the responsibility of the eight states/territories, partly because of the implementation by the federal Government of a far-reaching process of national training reform, and partly because of the existence of a range of policy advisory groups.
The federal Government, together with the states and territories, has embarked on an ambitious reform of vocational education and training, the main aims of which are to:
Indeed, one of the major changes over the past few years has been the emerging importance of enterprise and state strategic partnerships, which have affected the funding of training, its structures and delivery.
Before the reform, formal vocational education and training was almost exclusively the responsibility of the eight state/territory education and training systems. ("Formal", in this context, means training that leads to a qualification, as distinct from "informal", which does not). Because of diffuse responsibilities, Australia had never developed a national training system.
This meant that the (public) providers of training were also responsible for determining policy. State and territory ministers until recently regarded themselves as ministers responsible for public vocational education and training. Not surprisingly, this led to the major criticism of formal training that it was "supply-driven" rather than "demand-driven", because the clients (enterprises) had little or no involvement in policy determination. With the creation of the Australian National Training Authority (ANTA) and its key role in training reform, this has now changed. The relevant legislation for the implementation of training reform was the Australian National Training Authority Act 1992, the Amendment Act 1993 and the Amendment Act (No. 2) 1993. This legislation is mirrored in the corresponding state/territory legislation. Figure 1 shows the critical relationships. Funding is provided by both commonwealth and state/territory ministers.
The first underlying feature of the Australian approach, then, is the involvement of industry so that vocational education and training is client-driven. The second underlying feature to the Australian approach to partnership has been the separation of vocational education and training policy determination from training delivery. This has been achieved through national and state legislation.
In the Australian context, one innovative feature of training reform is that the system is now national (as opposed to federal) and its achievements will depend largely on the success of a new level of "government", represented by the Australian National Training Authority (ANTA), which sits between the states/territories and the Commonwealth. This is a level of government that is permitted by the Constitution, but which has not been attempted before.
Training reform has been driven by the Prime Minister's National Goals Statement of 1992, which lists six goals:
Six further proposals for achieving a national training system are currently being implemented. These proposals include the following:
Partnership is achieved through the second, fourth, fifth and sixth mechanisms, either through committee membership (e.g. the recently formed Standards and Curriculum Council) or through delivery (e.g. through the Australian Vocational Training System).
The Australian Government's policy with regard to enterprise and state strategic training partnerships has been absolutely clear. Publicity of the policy has been widespread and is generally understood. Mechanisms are in place and have already been evaluated and (as a consequence of the evaluation) have been modified.
The evaluation was carried out by the Allen Consulting Group. It is their work which led to the amalgamation of the National Training Board (NTB) with the Australian Committee for Training Curriculum (ACTRAC), with a view to the integration of skills development and curriculum development activities. One considerable weakness which has been identified is the absence of accompanying trainee assessment, other than as general statements, or through public providers of vocational education and training, who are also the accreditors. Assessment deficiencies are a major weakness of training reform.
A second major weakness highlighted in submissions to the Senate inquiry into ANTA is the place of adult and community education in the training reform.
The creation of the Australian National Training Authority (ANTA) was the single most important policy decision ever taken by Australian governments with a view to developing a national training system. The five-person ANTA Council comprises a trade union representative and four other industry members. ANTA may even be regarded as a new level of "government", sitting between the Commonwealth and the states/territories. It is national (not federal), with all Commonwealth, state and territory governments having an equal voice on the Ministerial Council (MINCO), to which it reports.
The main formal link between governments and enterprises is through the Industry Training Advisory Boards (ITABs), which are also Competency Standards Bodies (CSBs), although other specialized bodies may also be CSBs. Appendix II contains a summary of the main groups which comprise Australia's vocational education and training system.)
ITABs are tripartite in composition. They are served by extremely small secretariats and were actually threatened with closure at the time of the 1993-94 ANTA review. The purpose of that review was to make the advice provided by industry to government more effective and to increase industry's support for and participation in vocational education and training. In September 1994, MINCO supported ANTA's recommendation that there should be 18 new national ITABs (a reduction in their number). ITABs would advise ANTA on industry's training needs, consult with their industries and actively promote training reform.
Source: Australian National Training Authority.
The partnership process produced by the changes in vocational education and training has certain underlying features:
As a result of the reforms, industry is involved through its membership of ANTA, membership of state/territory training authority boards, membership of ITABs and through membership of various ANTA committees (such as the Research Advisory Council and the Standards and Curriculum Council). Industry is also involved through private training provision and through membership of public training provider college councils.
Industry's involvement in training provision is illustrated by the examples of group training companies and competency-based training in the action scheme.
Group training companies are responsible for employing apprentices and trainees and rotating them between a range of employers during the period of apprenticeship or training. Although the employers are small to medium-sized businesses, group training companies as a whole are the country's largest recruiters of apprentices and trainees.
Funding for the more than 100 group training companies is provided by the Commonwealth, state and territory governments. The industrial sectors covered include local government, manufacturing, hospitality, finance, automotive, building and construction, retail, electrical, engineering and plumbing.
Off-the-job training is sometimes carried out by the group training companies themselves and sometimes in a vocational education college. Some group training companies have formed their own skills centres. Since July 1995, funding to group training companies has been based on performance agreements with state/territory vocational education and training authorities.
Group training has been described as one of Australia's best-kept secrets. It consists of a set of partnerships between government/vocational training authority/employers/semi-private providers. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training evaluated the role and effectiveness of group training and concluded that:
Group training companies are ideally placed to be major players in the training reform and employment initiatives, as they have community-based structures operating in every region in Australia and work closely with thousands of small and medium-sized businesses across a wide range of industries. Group training companies are well-placed to persuade individual enterprises to undertake structured training, identify training needs and feed this information into the development of competencies and course modules which are relevant to the individual enterprise.
The second example is the competency-level training in the action scheme, which is administered by the National Staff Development Committee. Under this scheme, funding is provided on a dollar-for-dollar basis for the development of work-based, on-the-job, competency- based projects. Typically, action groups of four to ten people work together for three to nine months on a project. For example, the Australian Automotive Industry Training Council of Queensland and TAFE (Technical and Further Education) Queensland received funding to investigate on-the-job assessment in the automotive industry. Once again, this example illustrates strategic partnerships, this time between governments, industry and public providers.
Both examples show the importance of public funding for producing change. Both examples show that public funding, by itself, could not achieve that change: partnership is essential and extends to both direct and indirect private funding, as well as commitment by industry and provider(s) to the change process.
Figure 3 shows the sources and distribution of funding, as well as the industry input at each stage. That input is provided through committee membership, through "other training providers", or by means of Industry Training Advisory Boards (ITABs).
Submissions to the Senate Employment, Education and Training Committee for their review of ANTA have already been received and a discussion paper by the Committee has been distributed. The issues raised include the following:
-- between the promotion of a competitive training market and ANTA's mandate to plan public sector training programmes; and
-- between a market orientation and the integration of vocational education and training in secondary and tertiary education?
The impression given in the submissions to the Senate review is that, while the reforms to the vocational education and training system are supported by industry and by training deliverers, including partnership between enterprises and the Government for policy determination, the management of training delivery and (in some instances) delivery itself still poses considerable concerns. These concerns expressed include:
Questions raised by the Senate inquiry regarding the planning and consultative processes associated with the development of state training profiles include the following:
The question also arises as to how public providers of vocational education and training, known as Technical and Further Education (TAFE), handle all of these changes. The reforms in TAFE have usually been undertaken without the essential accompanying staff development. Competency-based training is one example. There has not been an integration of competency statements, curriculum development and staff development. (Recent restructuring and integration of those components by the Australian National Training Authority should help to overcome the problem.) Furthermore, in some states, the necessary structural reforms have not moved as quickly as the national reforms.
Many individual publicly funded colleges have a high standing and, in their localities and with particular industries, are not a cause of concern. Is it possible to generalize from these colleges? In some respects, it is possible to state that:
Part of TAFE's problem arises from a national structural problem. Australia insists on linking a particular type of educational level with a particular type of institution. So universities are places of higher education which offer degrees; schools offer general education; and TAFE trains people. The fact is that all levels of education, and all sectors of education, are involved in general education, vocational education and training.
As a means of describing the impact of the reforms of the vocational education and training system in Australia in practice, a number of case-studies of training providers were undertaken in 1994-95. The results of these studies are summarized below. For the purposes of the studies, training providers were separated into four groups:
The enterprise providers studied were:
The industry providers were:
The majority of the enterprise providers in the sample (86.1 per cent) consisted of large organizations, that is with more than 100 full-time employees. Industry providers varied in size. For both types of providers, the total number of staff dedicated to training provision was usually ten or fewer. Although there was a trend for this number to increase with the size of the organization, the change in the ratio was not statistically significant. Among enterprise providers, designated training personnel were most likely to be providing training in technical skills, and to a lesser extent, in interpersonal skills. In the case of industry providers, they were most likely to be providing training in managerial or supervisory skills.
The sample was drawn from providers operating across a range of industries. Internal enterprise training providers were most common in the retail industry, while industry-wide training providers were mostly from the building, construction and the food processing sectors.
Industry-wide and internal enterprise providers also differed in their reliance on government funding for the delivery of training. Of the industry-wide sample, 78.1 per cent had tendered to provide government-funded training programmes, compared to 29.6 per cent of the internal enterprise sample. Government grants to deliver training were being received by 25 per cent of internal enterprise providers, compared with 50 per cent of industry-wide providers. Both groups were receiving government subsidies for apprenticeships and traineeships.
While both types of providers deliver training which is based directly on identified needs, the nature of the training varies as a result of differences in each provider's role and stakeholders. Internal enterprise providers deliver training that is geared to the needs of an individual firm, with training being one of the features of that firm's organizational processes. Industry-wide providers target a range of enterprises across an industry or industrial sector, and training is the central feature of the organizations to which these providers belong. This means that internal enterprise providers address training needs that are highly specific to a particular organization, while industry-wide providers, in catering for a range of organizations, address training needs which are more generic.
Training costs
The study sought an indication from providers as to their training costs, rather than a detailed analysis of individual costs related to training. It was found that training costs have different implications for each type of provider. Industry-wide providers were heavily reliant on revenue from fee-for-service training, in contrast with internal enterprise providers, the majority of whom estimated that this revenue source contributed less than 15 per cent of their total training budget. Among internal enterprise providers, most (52 per cent) were operating on a training budget that represented between 1 and 5 per cent of their organizations's total salary budget. About a third of the sample were unable to provide any sort of estimate of training-related costs.
For all of the six providers that were studied, the perception of management was that training (especially competency-based training) had produced a range of observable improvements. Any costs involved therefore represented a positive investment.
The introduction of competency-based training was a government initiative. As a key component of training reform, it enjoys wide industry/enterprise support.
Level of training delivered
Providers were asked to relate the training they deliver to levels delineated in the Australian Standards Framework (ASF). Most of the training provided, for both industry-wide and internal enterprise respondents, targets levels 1 to 4 of the ASF. However, industry-wide providers, according to their responses to the survey, were more likely than their internal enterprise counterparts to be delivering training at levels 6 to 8 of the ASF.
It was interesting to note that some 39 per cent of internal enterprise providers and 22 per cent of industry-wide providers were not sufficiently familiar with the ASF to relate their training provision to this framework. This points to the need for a targeted information strategy designed to increase the understanding of training providers (especially internal enterprise providers) of the Australian Standards Framework.
Access and equity
Access and equity issues were being addressed by both types of providers. The groups receiving the most attention from each provider were people of non-English-speaking backgrounds and people with literacy and numeracy difficulties. Strategies for people of non-English-speaking backgrounds included:
For people with low levels of literacy and numeracy, the following strategies were used:
Three other groups with special needs were identified as receiving specific assistance from the training providers covered by the study. These were women, people of Aboriginal and Torries Strait Islander background and the long-term unemployed. Interestingly, the least nominated special needs group was people with a disability. This group was not identified by any of the internal enterprise providers as an access and equity target in their provision of training. From the information available, it is not possible to offer an explanation for this, but it does raise concerns for this target group.
Contracting of external training resources
Both enterprise and industry providers employed externally contracted training providers to assist them in training. These were most likely to be private commercial providers, and usually individual training consultants (rather than training colleges). They were employed on an "as-needs" basis to maximize flexibility. While internal enterprise providers tended to outsource to obtain support in the design and delivery of customized training, industry-wide providers tended to use external training personnel only for training delivery.
There has been a rapid increase in the number of private training providers. There is no professional registration of such trainers, although registration by the (then) National Training Board was necessary to conduct accredited courses available to other organizations. Many of the private trainers who have set up on their own account recently used to be employed in TAFE colleges and have now set up their own companies.
After private commercial providers, TAFE was the second most frequently employed external training resource, with internal enterprise providers being more likely than their industry-wide counterparts to contract training to TAFE. This may reflect the purposes for which external resources were used by each type of provider, with internal enterprise providers being more likely to require assistance in both the design and delivery of training programmes.
Setting standards for training
Training standards are set by the Australian Committee on Training Curriculum (the ANTA body formed by amalgamating the former National Training Board and the Australian Committee on Training Curriculum), which approves competency standards. These competency standards are developed by Competency Standards Bodies, most notably the ITABs, which are representative of industry.
Internal enterprise providers were far more critical than industry-wide providers in rating their organization's approach to training. This may reflect the fact that for internal enterprise providers training represents only one aspect of a company's operations and that such providers are therefore constantly striving to improve training provision in competition with other aspects of the enterprise's operations. Industry-wide providers, on the other hand, can focus exclusively on their training role and are perhaps therefore able to attain more easily the standards that they set for their training delivery.
Those providers studied were more oriented to "best practice" approaches than to benchmarking in setting training standards. When the responses were disaggregated by organizational size, the trend was for larger organizations not to benchmark and to see their own organization as a leader in their field, from which others could set benchmarks. Among industry-wide providers, 50 per cent of those employing between 1,001 and 5,000 workers did not benchmark. Among internal enterprise providers, 40 per cent of those employing more than 10,000 workers did not benchmark.
The national training reform agenda is, itself, a complex partnership initiative. Its success is therefore at least in part a measure of the success of training partnerships.
The national training reform agenda was described by the training providers surveyed as having made a noticeable impact. However, this response was more significant for industry-wide providers than for internal enterprise providers. From other information obtained through the survey, it was apparent that the perceived impact of the reforms was linked to the level of understanding by training providers of the agenda and its components. Industry-wide providers showed a slightly higher level of understanding than internal enterprise providers in identifying which levels of the ASF were being addressed by their training programme.
Recognition of prior learning
Industry-wide providers were far more likely than internal enterprise providers to have made formal provision for the recognition of prior learning (RPL). This did not necessarily reflect a difference in commitment to RPL as a principle, but in most cases arose from internal enterprise providers not having put in place the necessary procedures to implement RPL. Most of those surveyed indicated that they were unsure how to develop such procedures. As one provider noted: "Our training department is working on some process that is manageable ... Sometimes this recognition is more complex than the training process."
The feedback on RPL and the Australian Standards Framework suggests that there is a need for an information strategy targeting internal enterprise providers to fill these and other gaps in their understanding of specific components of the national training reform agenda.
Registration and accreditation
In general, the training providers studied were supportive of the reasons underlying provider registration and course accreditation, which were seen as quality control strategies. However, they were extremely hostile about what they perceived as the cumbersome, time-consuming and complex procedures involved, particularly those relating to course accreditation. These were seen as demanding more time, effort and input than providers were willing or able to supply. These findings should be of concern to national vocational education and training policy-makers. However, it should also be noted that a number of changes have been made by state recognition units to registration and accreditation processes since the survey was carried out. Such changes appear to address most of the problems identified by the respondents.
Although accreditation represents a validation mechanism for the courses that are delivered, providers regarded the aligning of courses to nationally endorsed competency standards as equally validating. Indeed, many had chosen to follow this path rather than that of accreditation because it was simpler and less time-consuming. One provider's comments summarize the general feeling of the majority of the respondents: "Why go to all the trouble when you can do it on your own with your own people and not have to put up with the frustration for no financial gains ... We achieve just as much without being a registered provider and with less anguish."
Despite their antipathy, most of the providers surveyed stated that they would recommend that other organizations should become registered providers delivering accredited courses, which is indicative of the value attached by them to quality-controlled training. From the tone of the providers' comments, the researchers have concluded that training reform would be boosted by a review of accreditation and registration procedures. Moreover, to ensure that such a review meets the needs of private sector training providers, it is essential that these stakeholders be significantly involved in it.
It should also be remembered that a measure of administrative constraint is inevitable if quality control is to be attained. Many providers, accustomed to a lack of bureaucratic procedures in the development of training programmes for use in their own organizations, will have been somewhat shell-shocked by the level of detail required in submitting a curriculum document for accreditation. It has to be possible for courses receiving national recognition to be delivered by a range of providers. Moreover they are intended to be durable, rather than one-off initiatives. The issue is that of determining a level at which quality can be obtained without unnecessary bureaucratic control. The three issues cited by the training providers surveyed as warranting most urgent attention in relation to training are: the need to promote quality control in training; the need to simplify procedures associated with course accreditation; and the need to develop an effective network linking different types of training providers.
The cases of the six training providers covered by the survey show the significant amount of change being experienced by internal enterprise and industry-wide training providers, with national training reform being one, albeit major, source of change. Queensland Rail is an organization which has undergone dramatic change as a result of its transition from a government body to a private corporation, as well as by the demand for enhanced productivity, its adoption of award restructuring and of competency-based training, and its move away from predominantly on-the-job training to an extensive modularized training programme. The organization has been and remains in a state of extreme change and its training programme has been driven by and underpins this change.
Like Queensland Rail, BHP Australia Coal has been influenced by a number of change factors, one of which is the national training reform agenda, which have demanded the development of a comprehensive training programme. The programme which has been implemented is competency-based and adopts a module format. Telstra Learning is another organization undergoing significant and continuing change, as it responds to the demand for product innovation, increased competitiveness, business globalization and changing consumer needs.
It is difficult to identify clearly the impact of national training reform on the training providers covered by the survey because it has been closely interwoven with other major sources of change. However, it is clear that aspects of the training reform agenda have been adopted (particularly competency-based training) and used to support overall change. The degree to which this has occurred depends on the organization and its particular needs. However, in all the cases studied, the linking factor has been the adoption of training practices which enhance flexibility.
A clearly formulated national strategy for vocational education and training entitled Towards a skilled Australia was published by the Australian National Training Authority in 1994. The strategy states that (page 7):
The key to making vocational education and training responsive is to enhance the choice that clients have between the full range of providers -- public, private and industry.
There is more choice today than in the past. Training partnerships and strategic alliances between vocational education and training providers and enterprises mark a new spirit of cooperation and market orientation between providers and their clients.
It also describes a keen approach to involving industry (page 8):
Industry Training Advisory Boards (ITABs)
As vocational education and training has been recognized increasingly as a tool for enterprise success, industries have sought a greater role in setting strategic directions for vocational education and training and in the "nuts and bolts" of training delivery.
The development of national, state and territory Industry Training Advisory Boards (ITABs) has been a major step in encouraging providers to be more responsive to industry needs, and in particular ensuring that industry priorities form the basis of vocational education and training provision.
Industry representation on ITABs
National, state and territory ITABs will be structured to ensure high-level industry representation, with greater involvement of enterprises and at the workplace level.
ITABs to develop national industry vocational education and training plans
National ITABs will develop industry-credible, high-quality industry training plans as frameworks for identifying training needs in each industry, and for considering resource requirements.
This proposal will commence in 1995 and be fully operational by 1996. The advice of State ITABs, together with other sources of industry and community advice, will inform the resource distribution priorities (between and within industry sectors) of states and territories, as expressed in their training profiles.
A major driving force in achieving enterprise/state partnerships is the principle of "user choice". As noted above, a thorough analysis of partnership is not yet possible because Australia is in a state of transition. Nevertheless, important generalizations are possible. In the first place, the changes are government-led and it is government money (not enterprise money) that is being used to bring about the changes. Secondly, because government money is being used, the changes are designed to help solve social problems (principally unemployment) and to achieve industrial relations aims. This can lead to short-term solutions, such as a strengthening of existing trades instead of the introduction of new trades. It can also lead to the Government paying for on-the-job training, as well as off-the-job training, in order to reduce unemployment.
In the third place, although the official rhetoric promotes industry ownership, that ownership is mostly restricted to committee membership. It does not, for example, provide for industry ownership for the regulation of the training system. The government authorities continue to do that. Australia has still (in effect) a United Kingdom system with elements of the German system. In the fourth place, the attempt to separate policy determination from delivery has occurred on paper, but not (to any great degree) in practice at the state/territory level. There is still no separation of training from the granting of awards. Industry can only exercise true ownership through awards.
The Australian National Training Authority (ANTA) publication (page 31) entitled Proposals for more effective implementation of training reforms, published in 1994, spells out the official "partnership" line:
11.1 It is clear from the consultations that industry in particular is seeking a greater influence on who provides training and how it is provided.
11.2 The growth of fee-for-service training has been a major feature of the development of the VET sector in Australia over the last five years. States and territories have taken steps to expand services. However, there are other ways in which the principle of consumer choice can be used to inform and improve the relevance and quality of training. Advice to ANTA from the consultants suggested that expanded entry-level training, where there are contracts of training and an employment relationship, would be an appropriate area for further initiatives in relation to user choice.
11.3 In ANTA's view the ability of a firm and its workers to participate in the choice of a training provider will have the following benefits:
-- it will increase the "ownership" of the training programme by the firm and the workers and allow for negotiation at a local level of delivery arrangements and "customization" of training;
-- it will enable competition among providers with associated enhancements such as increased flexibility in delivery; and
-- it will encourage more partnerships between firms and providers.
11.4 Given the scale and complexity of the "user choice" concept and the level of resources involved, there is clearly a need to ensure that funding and infrastructure are effectively used. ANTA proposes that this initiative be implemented initially in a pilot phase. Pilot arrangements are necessary to identify problems, assist in developing guidelines and guard against the possibility of "market failure" where new arrangements have not been properly tested.
11.5 ANTA believes that the key element in this process is that businesses of all sizes, as well as individuals, exercise an informed choice. This choice requires quality assurance systems to be implemented and supported by an appropriate information and access strategy. It is not necessary for the funds to flow to a business to itself purchase the training, for the choice to be exercised. To do so may involve the business in unnecessary contractual and audit requirements.
11.6 States and territories can, of course, take this concept of "user choice" further if they choose.
11.7 This initiative, which focuses attention on "demand side" issues should be undertaken in isolation. It needs to be accompanied by:
-- the development of training partnerships in other areas, thereby building on the range of successful initiatives already developed throughout Australia between enterprises, TAFE and other registered training providers;
-- an expansion of current state/territory initiatives in relation to tendering of public funds between public and private providers and public providers themselves; and
-- a greater emphasis on flexible delivery; providing training at times, in locations and using media appropriate to the needs of enterprises and individuals.
Implicit in "user choice" is the concept of competition, as noted above. Competition has become an end in itself, not just a means to an end. It has become product as well as process.
The implementation of the national training reform has involved:
An evaluation of national training reform has already been carried out (by the Allen Consulting Group). Its main message is that, to be effective, training reform has to start from the "demand side", not from the "supply side". Although presented as a conclusion, there is little evaluative support for the statement. Indeed, there is no evidence to show that a "demand side" approach will be any more effective than a "supply side" approach. It is a statement of belief. The "demand side" approach has produced major training deficiencies in the past. For example, there has been an apprentice shortage in boom periods caused by the decision not to recruit apprentices in times of depression. One example was the year in which a major national employer enrolled no engineering apprentices, only to discover a few years later that they were urgently needed. A standard way to deal with this problem has been to recruit skilled trades people from overseas. What is needed is a bringing together of supply side and demand side, a point which is also made in the evaluation report.
It is too early to determine whether the Australian approach has been successful. There are signs that the major structural changes are starting to make their impact. However, there are still big gaps to be filled. One of these is the lack of good-quality assessment. Competency standards have been developed, but without the necessary detailed assessment procedures. Moreover, recognition of prior learning (RPL) is mostly rhetoric rather than practice. Nevertheless, many of the bold changes which have taken place must be applauded, not least because of the way they seek to involve enterprises in training partnerships with the State. However, those partnerships must evolve beyond committee membership, or the use of government money to do what needs doing anyway. They must lead to financial commitments by enterprises (not just by the Government) and must lead to real ownership by industry, which has not yet happened. The use of vouchers for training has been discussed and they are still a (distant) possibility. That would be one approach to "ownership".
It may be that the Australian approach is just too complex, that too many fundamental changes are being attempted simultaneously, and that political imperatives will overwhelm training requirements. The changes have not come from the "grass roots" but from the top. Nevertheless, the changes are essential. Only time will tell how successful they have been.
AAACE Australian Association of Adult and Community Education
ACCI Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry
ACPET Australian Council of Private Education and Training
ACTRAC Australian Committee for Training Curriculum
ACTU Australian Council of Trade Unions
ACVETS Australian Committee for Vocational Education and Training Statistics
AIDA Australian Industries Development Association
ANTA Australian National Training Authority
ASF Australian Standards Framework
AVETMISS Australian Vocational Education and Training Management Information Statistical Standard
AVTS Australian Vocational Training System
BCA Business Council of Australia
CBT Competency-Based Training
CSB Competency Standards Bodies
DEET Department of Employment, Education and Training
ESFC Employment and Skills Formation Council
ESL English as a Second Language
GDP Gross Domestic Product
ITAB Industry Training Advisory Board
MCEETYA Ministerial Council on Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs
MINCO ANTA Ministerial Council
MTIA Metal Trades Industry Association
NATMISS National Management Information Statistics System
NBEET National Board of Employment, Education and Training
NCVER National Centre for Vocational Education Research Limited
NESB Non-English-Speaking Background
NSDC National Staff Development Council
NTB National Training Board
NTCC National TAFE Chief Executives Committee
RPL Recognition of Prior Learning
STP State Training Profile
TAFE Technical and Further Education
VET Vocational Education and Training
Australia spends about 5 per cent of its GDP on education (and about 2.3 per cent on defence). Vocational Education and Training (VET) in Australia is highly complex. Australia's Vocational Education and Training (VET) system includes government-funded, technical (or training) and further education (TAFE) institutes and colleges, and various private providers.
TAFE institutes and colleges
TAFE institutes and colleges are Australia's major providers of vocational education and training. The term "technical and further education" was popularized by the Kangan report in 1974, and TAFE became the well-recognized acronym. The acronym remains in general use, but in some states (including Victoria and South Australia) the official title is now "training and further education".
Private providers
Private providers include commercial (business colleges, training consultants, etc.) and community (adult and community education, Skillshare, etc.) providers of vocational education and training, and industry (skill centres, etc.) and enterprise (in-house) trainers. Commercial providers are represented by bodies including the Australian Council of Private Education and Training (ACPET). Community providers are very diverse, but most of the sector is represented by the Australian Association of Adult and Community Education (AAACE).
The term "industry" includes enterprises and unions. Industry makes systematic inputs through Industry Training Advisory Boards (ITABs) and Competency Standards Bodies (CSBs). The "social partners" are also represented on the board, councils and committees of the Australian National Training Authority (ANTA), state and territory training authorities, various state and territory TAFE bodies, the National Board of Employment, Education and Training (NBEET) and its councils, particularly the Employment and Skills Formation Council (ESFC) and the Board of the National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER).
The principal industry bodies are: the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI), previously the Confederation of Australian Industry (CAI); the Business Council of Australia (BCA), previously the Australian Industries Development Association (AIDA); and the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU). Other bodies represent the interests of small business and particular sectors or industries, of which the Metal Trades Industry Association (MTIA) is probably the most notable. In some countries, such as Sweden and Germany, substantial self-regulatory functions are delegated by governments to independent industry associations, but this is not as common in Australia. For example, standards approval is given by CSBs in Australia and course certification is provided by state/territory authorities.
Industry Training Advisory Boards (ITABs)
ITABs is the generic term for national, state and territory bodies which formulate advice on training and sponsor research on (and in some cases provide) training related to particular industries or clusters of industries. National ITABs are tripartite bodies, with business, union and government representatives. National ITABs report to and advise ANTA, while state and territory ITABs report to and advise state and territory training and TAFE authorities.
Competency Standards Bodies (CSBs)
CSBs are often ITABs, but may also be specialized bodies. CSBs develop national competency standards for a particular industry or group of industries. Although standards for a particular industry or group of industries. Although changes are in process, national competency standards are presently ratified by the National Training Board and related national curricula are developed through the Australian Committee on Training Curriculum (ACTRAC).
ACTRAC was established to coordinate national development of curricula for vocational education and training, including private providers and TAFE. The ratification of national and enterprise competency standards has been the responsibility of the National Training Board from February 1990, when it was established as a company owned by the Commonwealth, states and territories. It was supported by a memorandum of understanding that national competency standards endorsed by the NTB would be the basis for relevant vocational education and training in each state and territory.
National/intergovernmental bodies
Australian National Training Authority (ANTA)
ANTA is based on an agreement between Commonwealth, state and territory heads of government of July 1992. ANTA was established to develop a more nationally consistent vocational education and training system and to coordinate funding of vocational education and training. It was established on an interim basis in 1993, and formally under Commonwealth legislation with an industry-based Board of five members from January 1994. ANTA is responsible to an intergovernmental ANTA Ministerial Council consisting of Commonwealth, state and territory ministers with responsibilities for employment and vocational education and training. The ANTA Ministerial Council determines the national goals, objectives and priorities within which the ANTA Board sets national strategies and policies. Government funding for TAFE and private vocational education and training providers is directed by the ANTA Board in accordance with a national strategy developed on the basis of state and territory profiles produced by state and territory training authorities, with advice from national, state and territory ITABs.
ANTA Ministerial Council
The ANTA Ministerial Council is an intergovernmental ministerial forum consisting of Commonwealth, state and territory ministers with responsibilities for vocational education, employment and training. ANTA reports to this Council.
ANTA councils, committees and working parties
The ANTA Board is assisted by several ANTA councils, committees and working parties, most notably the ANTA Chief Executive Officers' Committee, which consists of the heads of the federal Department of Employment, Education and Training and state and territory training authorities.
The ANTA Ministerial Council agreed in November 1994 that the functions of the NTB and ACTRAC should be brought together within the ANTA structure and be responsible to ministers through the ANTA Board. A new Standards and Curriculum Council has been established to cover the Australian Standards Framework and the ratification of national and enterprise competency standards, the development of training curricula, assessment, the National Framework for Recognition of Training, the National Qualifications Framework and quality assurance. In May 1995, the ANTA Ministerial Council determined the final form of the arrangements for competency standards, curricula, recognition and staff development.
There are a number of advisory councils, committees and working parties that carry out national projects for the ANTA Board. In November 1994, the ANTA Ministerial Council also decided that the National Staff Development Committee should be brought within the ANTA structure and be responsible to ministers through the ANTA Board.
The Australian Committee for Vocational Education and Training Statistics (ACVETS) is responsible for the development of national data standards (AVETMISS), a national management information system (NATMISS) and the collection of a number of categories of data. The National Research Advisory Council has been established to advise ANTA on the investment of ANTA's substantial budget for centres, projects and fellowships in research related to vocational education and training. There are also other advisory bodies and working parties.
Ministerial Council (MCEETYA)
The Ministerial Council on Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) is a cross-sectoral intergovernmental ministerial forum, encompassing all sectors of education and training, as well as policies for employment and youth affairs, and is therefore broader in coverage than the ANTA Ministerial Council (MINCO). The ANTA Ministerial Council is not subordinate to MCEETYA in any sense, but since MCEETYA covers all sectors, cross-sectoral matters like the development of networking and VET in post-compulsory schooling require consideration by MCEETYA.
National TAFE Chief Executives' Committee (NTCC)
The National TAFE Chief Executives' Committee (NTCC) consists of TAFE chief executives from each state and territory and a senior DEET officer responsible for federal TAFE policy.
National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER)
The National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER) provides independent research, statistical, quality assurance and bibliographic data services related to vocational education and training. It is a company owned by Commonwealth, state and territory ministers responsible for vocational education.
Commonwealth/federal bodies
The federal Department of Employment, Education and Training (DEET)
DEET was established in 1987, covering all sectors of education and training and employment policy, to encourage cross-sectoral coordination of policy, consistent with the view that workplace developments require a convergence of general and vocational education, and a life-long approach to learning.
National Board of Employment, Education and Training (NBEET)
NBEET replaced the former Commonwealth Schools Commission, Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission and Australian Research Grants Committee. NBEET has six councils covering schools, vocational education and training, universities, research, language and literacy, and Asian studies. NBEET and its councils consist of individuals rather than representatives, but the individuals are chosen from a variety of industry, educational and community backgrounds to give Commonwealth ministers independent advice.
Employment and Skills Formation Council (ESFC)
The Employment and Skills Formation Council (ESFC) is the NBEET council responsible for training and employment issues. It has produced a number of influential reports, notably the Carmichael report on the new Australian Vocational Training System.
State and territory authorities
The state and territory ministers have agreed to contribute to nationally consistent policies through the intergovernmental Ministerial Councils (MCEETYA and ANTA's), but state and territory TAFE and training authorities remain responsible to individual ministers within each state and territory. In each state and territory, there are training authorities which interface most directly with ANTA, including the preparation of profiles of the state or territory vocational education and training system each year, with inputs from TAFE authorities, state or territory Industry Training Advisory Boards (ITABs) and private providers. State and territory training authorities are represented on the ANTA Chief Executive Officers' Committee.
Main policy reports leading to current reforms
Allen Consulting Group: Successful reforms: Competitive skills for Australians and Australian enterprises, report to the Australian National Training Authority, Allen Consulting, Melbourne (1994).
Australian Education Council Review Committee (Finn Report): Young people's participation in post-compulsory education and training, AGPS, Canberra (1991).
Dawkins, J.S.: Improving Australia's training system, AGPS, Canberra (1989)
Department of Employment, Education and Training: Australia's workforce in the year 2001, AGPS, Canberra (1991).
Employment and Skills Formation Council (Carmichael Report): The Australian Vocational Certificate Training System, National Board of Employment, Education and Training, Canberra (1992).
Keating, P.J.: National goals for vocational education and training in Australia, AGPS, Canberra (1992).
Keating, M. (Green Paper): Restoring full employment: A discussion paper, AGPS, Canberra (1995).
Keating, P.J. (White Paper): Working nation: Policies and programs, AGPS, Canberra (1994).
Mayer Committee Report: Putting general education to work: The key competencies report, Australian Education Council, Melbourne (1992).
National Board of Employment, Education and Training: Post-compulsory education and training: Fitting the need, NBEET, Canberra (1992).