VDC’s former resident ghost writer, Hugh Guthrie has also had a new paper published, authored in conjunction with VET consultant Melinda Waters.
The VOCEDplus landmark document is an historical overview of VET quality. Starting back in 1964 the researchers work through 37 landmark documents (ie those which were mostly “commissioned by federal governments and/or statutory bodies and sanctioned authorities or agencies”) to satisfy their “deep curiosity” of the Australian VET quality debate and how it has changed over time.
Amongst the key issues they identify which continue to have a “deep seated” impact on quality are:
- the status of VET in the broader tertiary education sector
- articulation between the sectors
- industry responsiveness
- competition and funding subsidies (including the relatively low levels of funding for VET)
- competency-based assessment
- VET curriculum
- the quality of VET teaching
- public vs private RTOs
- federal vs state governments
- “the role and purpose of the sector”
- the quality of providers (including their flexibility and capability)
- a lack of comprehensive data on the sector
- lack of national consistency in the organisation of state/territory VET systems, and
- blurred boundaries with respect to responsibility and accountability for the sector.
The researchers identify that the history of VET quality in Australia reflects shifting government ideologies, evolving social and economic priorities, and persistent systemic challenges such as inconsistent recognition of outcomes, variable teaching quality, limited pathways, workforce capability gaps, and funding constraints.
These issues have contributed to a recurring perception of a quality deficit and driven frequent policy interventions – often too rapid to take root. The literature highlights that VET quality is a complex, “multi-dimensional concept” shaped by both national and state policies and local provider, teacher and learner needs and interests.
A key tension persists between government priorities focused on skills and workforce development, and “the broader educational, social and individual development of quality held by RTOs and teachers”. While this tension has been evident throughout the landmark documents analysed, the researchers argue that a more balanced approach now appears possible.
