News
VET funding under spotlight
Funding for the VET sector might be better allocated if based on completion rates rather than enrolments, says the head of the National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER).
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
I don’t know what planet Tom Karmel is living on but he can’t be serious about linking payment to completion rates. The ability to complete a course is down to the student’s will & skills. If they can’t be bothered to learn or give it a decent go, then why should it be the teacher’s problem to “get them over the line”. The moment you link completions to payment, the quality levels will plunge to an all time low which will make the qualifications a waste of time & a national joke.
First problem that needs to be addressed is the ridiculously low wages we are paying many apprentices to start with. Why should they stick out 3 years of rubbish wages when someone on the dole is getting almost as much?
Second problem, we have a generation of young people that have had teachers & adults preventing them from “failing” at anything. If they can’t read or write, don’t hold them back it will damage their self esteem… so they continue to be moved through the education system never having to be accountable or work too hard if the going gets tough. Admittedly this does not apply to the entire youth cohort but it does to a certain percentage of those finding themselves doing manual training because school didn’t work for them.
Thirdly, as a teacher, I personally resent the implication that it is the teacher’s / school’s fault when a student is not successful. The old saying,”you can lead a horse to water but can’t make it drink” applies to students also. We can only do so much.
To further penalize a training system already crippled by political decisions, reduced funding & broken promises borders on insanity.
I have had enough, when will common sense prevail?
A more serious problem with funding providers by completions is the great encouragement it gives them to pass students despite poor performance, further undermining standards which are already too variable.
I have operated my own RTO for over 21 years. We have performed training on a fee for service basis and also under the PPP and the Access Program. I also agree that making a completion the benchmark to whether an RTO is paid or not can only serve to further lessen the quality of training. Anyone can pass a student if the payment depends on it. My organisation used to request that student workbooks were completed by the end of the face-to-face component of the training course. We then started getting complaints about how some people had to rush their work and that they feared quality was compromised as a result of their rush. We the asked them to return their workbooks when they had finished them in their own time. Since then, below 50 percent of students ever return their work. Therefore, if funding payments were based on completions, our income would reduce by over half and that would be through no fault on our part.
As educators it is our responsibility to do whatever is possible to provide a successful outcome for our students.
It’s true that “you can lead a horse to water but can’t make it drink” having said that if your horse is thirsty do what the hell you can to get it to the pond! We all know that for the most part teachers do their best but we also know that there are those who do not. This also applies to HE. It’s not about delivering a body of knowledge and hoping for the best it’s about doing what the hell you can to ensure a successful outcome WITHOUT lowering standards.
Perhaps some TAFE students could be encouraged to complete their courses if their Centrelink education bonuses were paid per successful semester, and not in a large lump sum at the beginning, with no repayment necessary if dropped out. TAFEs can only do their best – the students must have the will to complete. Also, no completion means you can continue studying different quals of the same level without paying full fees.
Once again it seems that the educators are to be made responsible for the failure of others. What result do we expect when students who don’t have to pay for their training can ‘drop out’ whenever they please and still get rewarded by gaining another traineeship or free course. Education and skill development has been denigrated to a point where many perceive it as an inconvenient obstacle. Linking RTO payment to completions will have two results, firstly as many have pointed out it will reduce the quality of training and skills produced and secondly it will force quality RTOs out of the industry. Private RTOs must continually demonstrate how they provide student support, flexibility, and quality outcomes all the while competing with TAFE and reduced funding. I agree that we must do as much as we can to support students however and as educators we can ‘teach’ anybody but a simplistic behaviourist approach of punishing the educators will not work.
The data has flaws – don’t blame the educators!!
Many non-completions are due to valid reasons, such as students planning to complete a skill set, not a qualification; or a deferral for a period of time; or withdrawal due to identification of a more appropriate qualification, or a higher level qualification.
I agree with Gavin Moodie’s comment – don’t encourage poorly managed institutions to ‘pass all students’. Quality of delivery, assessment and information for students must rise above funding issues. If a student is identified as being in ‘the wrong course’, the decision to offer the students an alternative that will be more satisfying is obviously the best outcome. This opportunity for quality advice and monitoring will be compromised if funding is tied to completion.