by CLAIRE FIELD

New courses are developed for new jobs in the same way courses have traditionally been developed for traditional occupation

Last week’s  column on the changing world of work and what it means for VET solicited a number of interesting responses. One leading figure suggested the problem lay in unfinished work dating back to the Hawke-Keating reforms. In a nutshell the argument was that while that era saw significant education reforms, they were not focussed on the challenges of what and how to teach in a post-industrial economy, and hence new courses are developed for new jobs in the same way courses have traditionally been developed for traditional occupations. We need to ask – do “product people” need the same training approach as electricians?

Another surprising response was receiving anonymous hard copy documents outlining the challenges in finalising changes to the Community Services Training Package.

Despite the urgent need for changes in aged care training, and the unanimous views of the relevant Industry Reference Committees on the proposed changes, and the strong support of stakeholders – the process has stalled due to “residual differences” about “a small number of units of competency.”

To resolve these concerns the training package was sent to senior VET officials in October. It appears they are now considering four options:

(i) recommend ministers endorse the proposed changes

(ii)  send the proposed changes back to the Australian Industry Skills Committee for further consultation

(iii)  recommend ministers reject the changes, or

(iv) a hybrid approach where some of the changes are approved and others rejected – with one of the rejected changes being amendments to the Certificate IV in Ageing Support “given concerns that the job role for this certificate is not clear.”

Whichever option officials ultimately recommend to ministers this process raises serious questions, including for the new Industry Cluster model. They include:

* who represents industry and whose views count when a minority disagree with a small number of changes to what is taught in VET?

* will VET continue to only create courses which narrowly align with existing occupations – despite the significant changes in workplaces which Prof. Unwin singled out in the conference speech I referenced last week?

And most crucially of all – what does the delay in approving changes to the Community Services Training Package mean for elderly people in aged care?

Claire Field is an adviser to the tertiary education sector