How Do We Fix a Broken System?

The discussion no one seems to want to have

There has been an elephant sitting in the VET room for a very long time: the system by which we develop, attract and retain the trainers and assessors upon whom the quality of Australian vocational education and training ultimately depends.

For more than a decade, we have debated versions of the Training and Education (TAE) qualifications, changed requirements, strengthened regulation and tried to improve assessment practices. Yet a fundamental question remains: are we actually producing the capable, experienced and industry-connected trainers and assessors Australia’s VET system needs?

I am not convinced we are. More importantly, I am not convinced practising VET trainers and assessors — the people closest to the problem — have a sufficiently strong and unified voice in determining the solution.

The warning signs are there!

“Why are TAE enrolments declining?

Why do serious problems with competency-based assessment persist?

Why do RTOs struggle to attract experienced industry practitioners?

And why, after years of reform and regulatory intervention, are we still questioning the capability of the VET workforce?

Recent regulatory action involving more than 43,000 cancelled qualifications should cause everyone in the sector to stop and think. These are not simply compliance problems. They raise a bigger question about the capability of the system itself.

Where is the voice of the trainer and assessor?

VET is fragmented. Government, regulators, RTOs, industry and education providers all have established voices and representative structures. But where is the strong, independent and unified voice of trainers and assessors working in workshops, classrooms, workplaces and online environments to make competency-based training and assessment work?

Too often we use the word “stakeholder” without asking who actually has a stake in whether the system works. Those delivering training, making assessment decisions, working with learners and translating industry requirements into workplace competence certainly do. They therefore should help shape solutions from the beginning, not simply be consulted afterwards.

Have we made becoming a VET trainer / assessor too difficult?

One of vocational education’s greatest strengths should be its connection to industry. Our best potential trainers may be experienced tradespeople, technicians, managers and specialists who have developed expertise through years of practice.

Yet we ask them to enter an education and regulatory environment that can appear increasingly academic, complex and compliance-driven. Have we unintentionally created barriers that discourage exactly the people VET most needs?

Training and assessment are professional skills that must be learned. But our challenge should be to develop excellent vocational educators from excellent industry practitioners — not create an entry pathway that makes experienced practitioners decide becoming a trainer simply isn’t worth the trouble.

Why should one TAE fit everybody?

TAE qualifications are expected to operate across construction, aged care, hospitality, mining, business, automotive, community services, manufacturing, information technology and many other sectors. The workplaces, risks, learners and ways competence is demonstrated can be very different.

Yet we continue searching for one model capable of spanning them all. Before asking what should go into the next TAE, perhaps we should ask whether one pathway should really be expected to meet every context.

Returning to the craft of vocational education

Before adding increasingly sophisticated requirements, perhaps we need stronger foundations in the basics: what competency means; how to train someone to perform effectively in a workplace; how to observe performance and identify valid evidence; how to make sound professional judgements; how to give useful feedback; and how to work with learners of different backgrounds and capabilities.

These are not merely compliance questions. They are the craft of vocational education. We need to become better at teaching that craft before adding further layers of complexity.

What could a different system look like?

I don’t pretend to have all the answers. That is partly the point: we need the discussion.

“Could we create a staged pathway where experienced industry practitioners begin with strong foundations and supervised practice, supported by experienced mentors, before progressing to advanced practitioner qualifications?

Could industries have greater flexibility to develop pathways suited to their environments while retaining common national standards?

Could we create a clearer professional pathway from industry practitioner to vocational trainer, experienced assessor, mentor and educational leader?”

And could practising trainers and assessors finally have a meaningful, independent voice in answering these questions?

These ideas may or may not be the solutions. But they are conversations worth having.

This isn’t someone else’s problem!

Government cannot solve this alone. Neither can regulators, RTOs, industry, or trainers and assessors. Nor should any one group dominate simply because it has the loudest voice, greatest resources or strongest institutional representation.

We need an honest discussion involving those who design the system, regulate it, operate it, employ its graduates and deliver training and assessment at the frontline. It should not begin with protecting existing structures, but with a simpler question:

“If we were designing Australia’s VET trainer-and-assessor workforce from scratch today, knowing what we now know, would we build the system we currently have?”

If the answer is no, tinkering around the edges isn’t enough.

Australia needs a capable, experienced and industry-connected VET workforce if vocational education is to meet the needs of industry now and into the future.

The elephant has been sitting in the room long enough. Perhaps it is time to open the door — and decide together where it should go next.

Article written by Wendy Cato

AITAS Rating 2