by CLAIRE FIELD

but not so much for VET

Recently the Productivity Commission published the final report of its latest five year Productivity Inquiry: Advancing Prosperity. Hats off to anyone who has read the entire nine volumes. I focussed on the education chapter and particularly higher education and VET.

One of the Commission’s observations is that “for vocational education and training (VET), and for universities and other higher education providers, the rise of non-routine work and the explosion of high-skill jobs has implications for the quantity and quality of education needed.”

This statement sets the scene for quite a wide-ranging suite of recommendations for higher education but, sadly, far fewer for VET.

In addition to recommending changes to higher education student funding (including reintroducing demand driven funding and aligning student contributions to the amount students earn in different careers), the Commission recommends a number of other changes, including:

* better data to support more informed student choice

* professionalise teaching, and

* nested qualifications (so students who drop out can still attain a qualification).

For VET there was much less in the Commission’s report so I looked at how its ideas compared with the recommendations in submissions to the House Standing Committee Inquiry into the Perceptions and Status of VET from key business, union and VET sector peak bodies, as well as the New South Wales, South Australian and Tasmanian governments and various Commonwealth government agencies.

Collectively there was support for:

* expanding VET student loans to more diplomas and advanced diplomas

* making the student loan administration fees the same across all Commonwealth loans

* support for new funding for lifelong learning (the PC makes a compelling argument to focus this support on lower-paid workers)

* extra funding for the professional development of VET trainers

* support for the Jobs and Skills Councils being able to pursue quicker updates to Training Packages and to implement changes to the design of VET qualifications, and

* more programmes which involve VET providers and industry and more pathways between VET and higher education.

Disappointingly neither the Productivity Commission nor government submissions to the Inquiry proposed increased investment in VET. By contrast unions, business and sector peak bodies argued persuasively for more VET funding.

Undoubtedly the Accord panel and officials advising Skills Ministers on the next National Skills Agreement will be reading these reports carefully. The sector awaits their decisions with interest.

Claire Field has summarised the report and submissions in more detail in the latest episode of the ‘What now? What next?’ podcast