Home > VET Knowledge Bank > Landmark documents > Historical overviews: Quality

Historical overviews: Quality

The VOCEDplus landmark documents are key documents considered by history and authoritative commentary to have influenced the development of the Australian vocational education (VET) system, providing vision and/or leading to significant change. A chronological list of these documents tagged with the areas of influence is available on the main Landmark documents page.

This overview traces the evolution of the quality of Australian vocational education and training (VET) through the lens of the landmark documents, showing how its dimensions and foci have changed over a period of 45 years. The first section is divided into five 'eras', chronologically examining the influence of the landmark documents on the VET quality debate and developments in VET policy reform. The second section discusses the prominent quality themes running through the landmark documents at macro (VET governance, policy, regulation and Training Packages) and local (VET providers and provision) levels. The overview concludes with reflections on key messages from the landmark documents.

Please note - The views and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author/s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Australian Government, state and territory governments or NCVER.

Download PDF   Word

Quality's conceptual journey in VET: insights from NCVER's landmark documents and beyond

Authors: Melinda Waters, Tertiary Education Consultant and Hugh Guthrie, Adjunct Member of Staff, Griffith Institute of Educational Research (GIER)

Introduction

Quality has been a continuing theme throughout Australia's vocational education and training (VET) sector's history. This paper traces the evolution of VET's quality through the lens of the VOCEDplus landmark documents. These are documents considered by the National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER) to have provided a vision for VET and/or led to significant reforms or attitudinal change in the sector (NCVER 2018).¹ Most were commissioned by federal governments and/or statutory bodies and sanctioned authorities or agencies and continue to influence the design, governance, funding, delivery and functions of VET to this day (Butler & Ferrier 2023).

The landmark documents traverse VET's history from 1964 to 2010, which includes two distinctive eras of VET reform: one initiated by the Kangan Committee report of 1974 (Kangan 1974), and the second heralded by a series of reports during the late 1980s (Dawkins & Holding 1987; Dawkins 1988a; Dawkins 1988b; Dawkins 1989) that brought in the industry-led, competency-based training (CBT) system we know today. Of the 37 landmark documents currently identified, at least 14 focus in part on quality and provide insights into what constituted quality and the major quality concerns in their time (Butler & Ferrier 2023). There is also a considerable body of work written during and since the landmark documents that have influenced VET's quality debate in significant and different ways.² It is not feasible to cover this body of work, but significant reports and some state reviews of VET are referred to, some of which may be considered 'landmark' given their significant contribution.

Why this paper

This paper stems from a deep curiosity in how the quality debate has been shaped over time and why many of the quality issues cited in the landmark documents have persisted. Australia's VET system is clearly well recognised for many achievements (Harris 2015; Zoellner 2019), and NCVER's student outcomes and employer use and views data show that both employers and students are generally satisfied with the system. Nevertheless, the VET literature tells us that deep-seated issues impacting on quality prevail, such as: the place [and status] of VET in tertiary education; articulation between sectors; VET's responsiveness to industry; competition and subsidy; curriculum and CBT; public versus private; federal and state; the quality of teaching; and the role and purpose of the sector.

Other quality-related issues raised by the landmark documents and in later work include the quality of providers (flexibility and capability), the lack of comprehensive data and information about the sector and its workforce (Guthrie 2010), a bias to school and universities by policy makers and relatedly, relatively low levels of funding for the sector, a lack of national consistency in the way states and territories have organised their VET systems, and blurred boundaries in responsibility and accountability for the sector. What is striking, Ryan (2019) writes, is that these issues have largely been left unanswered.

A journey back through consecutive landmark documents affirms Ryan's view and the prevalence of these (and other) quality issues. One can also trace the origins of the current regulatory system (VET Quality Framework, National Standards for RTOs and the national regulator, the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA))³ and ongoing tussles between two opposing philosophical views on the role and purpose of VET and thus what constitutes quality. According to Schofield (1992), this tussle has played out between two policy 'tribes': one focussed on meeting the needs of the economy (the training tribe) or manpower view that is 'best set out' for governments and regulators (Griffin 2017, p.43) and the other focused on broader educational, social and individual values (the education tribe).

Clearing definitional ground

The quality of VET is often referred to in terms of how good a qualification, course and/or learning experience and outcomes are when compared to other providers and/or the legislated National Standards for RTOs (2015). In reality, judgments of quality are more complex due to the term's multiple dimensions and opportunities for different interpretation (Griffin 2017) and expectations of what 'adequate quality' should be (Noonan & Condon 2013). According to Harvey (2007), quality in higher education can be:

1. Exceptional or excellent (that is it ensures or surpasses high standards)
2. Perfect (or consistent) (zero defects and getting things right the first time)
3. Fit for purpose (meeting a stated purpose such as customer expectations)
4. Value for money (return on investment and accountability to stakeholders)
5. Transformation (adds value through learning).

The quality of VET might also be viewed through an individual dimension (that prepares individuals for work and life), a social dimension (that addresses social equity and the integration of people at risk of marginalization) or an economic dimension (that provides skilled workers for industry and the economy) (Euler 2013). There are also perspectives on quality from a pedagogic, customer and management viewpoint (Blom & Meyers 2003).

Quality in VET is also multilayered; that is considered at a system, provider or course level, with stakeholders (learners, employers, industry, training providers, governments and regulators) likely to focus on different levels at different times (Griffin 2017). Quality can also be 'a short hand [sic] way of expressing value discontent with the present outcomes of education' (OECD 1984, cited in Karmel 1985, p.3).

The point is that all perspectives provide a different way to frame quality and how it is measured. At local levels, students might judge quality as gaining employment or career advancement or how meaningful their learning experiences have been. Providers might judge quality in terms of outcomes for students' and employers' satisfaction with learning as well as compliance with regulatory requirements. Employers might judge quality as the availability of graduates to meet their skill needs and return on their investment in training. Governments might view quality as the extent to which labour market policy goals are achieved, stakeholder interests are met and value for taxpayer money is achieved. There are no right or wrong views. VET systems around the world choose quality indicators to suit their systems (Blom & Meyers 2003) and the weighting they give to the relative importance of each (Karmel 1985). There is also no simple prescription for which indicators are essential to good quality.

Outline of this paper

This paper tells an abridged version of VET's quality story and how its dimensions and foci have changed over 45 years. The first section is divided into five parts: (1) the pre-Kangan era of VET reform; (2) the Kangan era; (3) the Dawkins era; (4) the post-Dawkins era; and (5) post-landmark documents to the present day. Each part briefly outlines relevant landmark documents in chronological order and how they may have influenced VET's quality debate. Postscripts are provided to capture developments in VET policy reform that occurred after each landmark document. 

The second section discusses the prominent quality themes running through the landmark documents at a macro (VET governance, policy, regulation and Training Packages) and local (VET providers and provision) level. The paper concludes with reflections on key messages from the landmark documents.

The landmark documents are reference throughout this paper according to the person who headed the review or inquiry leading to their publication. The term 'teacher' is used to encompass all people who deliver (teach and assess) VET courses and qualifications (including teachers, trainers, assessors, educators, lecturers and practitioners). The term 'teaching' is used to incorporate all aspects of teaching, training, assessing and other activities that directly support the learning and development of VET students.

VET's quality story

While this paper focuses principally on quality-designated landmark documents, it is useful to trace the origins of quality in VET back to its inception when technical schools were known as 'poor men's grammar schools' (Ryan 2011, p.7), perhaps laying the foundations for public perceptions of VET as inferior to education in schools and universities. Technical schools were replaced by mechanics institutes and schools of the arts in the early-to-mid 1800s,⁴ and then by more comprehensive public technical training institutions,⁵ which provided vocational training (for skills) and liberal education (for broader citizenship) (Ryan 2019). This expanded the sector's role and purpose and heralded major tussles over these important objectives ov VET into the future.

The first inquiry into technical education was the Fink Commission (1901) in Victoria, which was followed by similar inquiries in New South Wales (NSW) (1901), Tasmania (1904), South Australia (1905) and Queensland (1909). All recommended improving the sector's quality (Goozee 2001). Interest in a national technical education system was sparked early too but by 1919, all states had established their own technical education systems and had little interest in Commonwealth intervention (Goozee 2001). In the 1930s, the states expanded the number and range of technical schools to cater for students who were unable to enter high schools and to produce greater numbers of technically trained workers (Zoellner 2019). A review commissioned by the Commonwealth not long after found the adult education sector to be:

... a threadbare, inadequate, chronically poverty-stricken affair; very much at the bottom of the educational pecking order and its weakness was compounded by state parochialism (Whitelock 1973, cited in Zoellner 2019, p.5).

Post-Second World War, the Commonwealth intervened by funding the delivery of a Reconstruction Training Scheme in state-based technical schools and colleges (Zoellner 2019). The sector was mostly focused at this time on recovery, supporting people through the depression and meeting the language needs of migrants. The strong link between VET and skilled migration is evident in the first quality-related landmark document, the Tregillis report (Tregillis 1969).

The sector then slowly receded from public view until the late 1970s (Ryan 2011). The exceptions were the landmark Wright report (Wright 1954), which raised concerns about the system's capacity to meet the needs of a rapidly expanding industrial economy, and the landmark Martin report (Martin 1964), Tertiary education in Australia which, while essentially a review of higher education, raised concerns about the quality of technical curriculum (content and emphasis) at Diploma level (then considered part of higher education). Martin had a strong educational view of VET and recommended the incorporation of 'liberal studies' into Diploma curriculum.⁶

We take up VET's quality story at this point. The quality-related landmark documents are discussed below in relation to the political winds influencing VET policy at the time, the major reforms they heralded and their apparent perspectives on quality. We also refer to other landmark documents that have not been designated quality-related but may have strongly influenced the quality debate.

The pre-Kangan era

1969: a nationally consistent VET system

The Tregillis report (1969), The training of skilled workers in Europe, argued the case for a national training system after a Tripartite Mission to Europe investigated training for the engineering and electrical trades in several countries. At the time, Australian industries relied heavily on migration for skilled labour from Europe but significant changes to European industries and training systems were making it increasingly difficult to select skilled migrants. By 1951, this issue had reached 'critical proportions' (Tregillis 1969, p.6).

The Mission identified several factors driving high quality in European VET systems, notably: high levels of national cooperation between governments, employers and trade unions; significant investment by employers in the system; comprehensive 'syllabi' for each occupation; flexible training arrangements for apprentices; and broad-based training for employees 'irrespective of age, sex, length of service or other restrictive conditions' (Tregillis 1969, p.17). New and 'radical departures' from traditional course design and teaching were also observed (Tregillis 1969, p.71). By comparison, of all the advanced industrialised countries, Australia was:

the only country where there is no general co-ordination of training on a national basis to ensure a uniformity of training methods, a uniformity of standards and common acceptance of qualifications (Tregillis 1969, p.89).

In contrast, Tregillis envisioned a system in which all students studying a particular occupation across the country should be able to study the same program at the same level and where training programs should be a function of what is required to be learned rather than a set duration.

Other issues impacting on the quality of Australia's system at the time were a lack of industry focus, poorly organised training for technical teachers and inadequate funding for the sector. To address these challenges, Tregillis recommended improving the uniformity of the 'content and method' of curriculum, providing more flexible opportunities for workers to 'acquire new skills' and initial training and regular continuing professional development (CPD) for technical teachers to ensure they maintained a 'sound practical and theoretical knowledge of [their] trade' and were more engaged in higher qualifications (Tregillis 1969, p.65). Importantly, Tregillis directly associated quality in VET with adequate funding and highlighted the low levels for technical education in comparison to schools and universities (NCVER 2018). He framed quality in a consistently (national uniformity) dimension and described the purpose of technical education as meeting the 'immediate and foreseeable requirements' of industry (Tregillis 1969, p.17), also locating quality in an economic (human capital) dimension.

The Kangan era

1974: A broader purpose for VET

The landmark Kangan report (1974), TAFE in Australia: report on needs in technical and further education published five years later, placed technical training on the national policy agenda and led to the first 'genuinely national' VET system (Ryan 2019, p.3). It also articulated a broader and shared purpose for the sector (Wheelahan 2010) based on principles of lifelong learning, 'second-chance education' and developing individuals for 'work, home and the community' (Kangan 1974, vol.1, p.xxi). Kangan's central concept was unrestricted access for students to post-school education in Technical and Further Education (TAFE) institutions owned by the states and funded by the Commonwealth Government. His vision was helping students to 'adapt themselves to changing conditions and to re-training, as necessary, at any time of their working lives' (Kangan 1974, vol.1, p.xxiii) and 'to ensure that the inevitable specialisation in particular occupations does not stifle broader interests' (Kangan 1974, vol.1, p.11).

Like Tregillis, Kangan was critical of the sector's lack of flexibility to respond to 'different rates of individual educational progress' and technological change, and lack of relevance to industry (Kangan 1974, vol.1, p.14). He was also highly critical of inadequate funding for TAFE, noting that:

the State TAFE systems should not be suffering so severely as they obviously are from inadequate resources for planning to meet capital and recurrent needs, continuously producing statistical information on which to base decisions, conducting research for curriculum development, arranging in-service education for teaching and other staff, and carrying out other essential staff functions that should be expected from 'headquarters' (Kangan 1974, vol.1, p.xxvii).

One might argue that these are essential elements of quality. The amount of theory and length of TAFE courses and the lack of universal recognition of VET qualifications by different state authorities were also significant concerns.

Kangan was also concerned about the 'near-monopoly' of teacher-led instruction in TAFE and a general lack of teaching expertise (Kangan 1974, vol.1, p.xviii), attributing both to the legacy of secondary school curricula (based on examinations and compulsory class attendance) and teaching practices brought into VET by secondary teachers. This type of instruction, Kangan wrote, did not meet the needs of adult learners, motivate students to learn or improve access to technical education. Environments 'conducive to active self-learning' were preferable (Kangan 1974, vol.1, p.xviii). Kangan advised improving the quality of curricula with more general content and by integrating social, communication and technical skills, as Martin (1964) had argued earlier. Other recommendations he made included more frequent revision of curriculum based on intensive research, developing common guidelines and national accreditation standards for the initial training of teachers, opportunities for teachers to update their industry knowledge, and a national inquiry into teacher preparation.

By broadening the role and purpose of TAFE (and like institutions) to include social, economic and individual dimensions, Kangan coupled an economic purpose with social justice ideals (Butler & Ferrier 2023) and introduced the concepts of lifelong and adult learning, learner-centred teaching and the transformative power of VET to individuals into the quality debate. He also temporarily united VET’s warring policy tribes (Ryan 2011). 

1985: Competency and key competences

Over a decade later, the landmark Karmel review (1985), The quality of education, was tasked by the Commonwealth to improve communication and literacy and numeracy in education and pathways between secondary schooling and employment. It also looked at funding for schools relative to TAFE and higher education. By this time, national labour markets had deteriorated and there were high levels of unemployment among young people. There was also a 'climate of public expenditure restraint' (Karmel 1985, p.2) and mounting criticisms over the lack of relevance of post-compulsory education to students and the labour market.

Karmel (1985) was significant to VET's quality for several reasons. First, he attempted to define quality, as cited in the definitional section. Second, he introduced the concept of competence, albeit initially in schools, as 'the ability to use knowledge and skills effectively to achieve a purpose with demonstrable effects' (Karmel, 1985, p.70). Third, he proposed five generic skills⁸ for incorporation in school and VET curriculum to prepare students for 'life, work and leisure' (Karmel 1985, p.75), paving the way for considerable debate about where these skills should sit in VET curriculum and who should deliver them.

Karmel was not confident however that schools could effectively deliver these competencies (Beddie 2019). He did not recommend that TAFE should offer alternative Years 11 and 12 either, concerned that TAFE's 'character' and ability to respond to labour markets might be fundamentally changed as a result (Karmel 1985, p.114). Instead, Karmel called for pathways from school to VET to be strengthened and for significant increases in resourcing for TAFE. The Karmel report reinforced an economic view of VET and added 'creativity, ingenuity, entrepreneurial behaviour and innovation', to the mix of skills workers needed to support 'new production methods' in industry at the time (Karmel 1985, pp.74, 62). 

The Dawkins era

1987-1989: An industry-led training system

Two years later, a series of landmark policy statements were released by the Hon John Dawkins, MP, then federal Minister for Employment, Education and Training: Skills for Australia (Dawkins & Holding 1987); Industry training in Australia: the need for change (Dawkins 1988a); A changing workforce (Dawkins 1988b); and Improving Australia's training system (Dawkins 1989). Collectively these statements heralded the second major era of reform that transformed VET from a supply-led system (led by providers) to a demand-driven system (led by industry).⁹ While the first statement was decisive to the direction of VET policy (Goozee 2001), only the Dawkins (1988a) and Dawkins (1989) statements are formally recognised as quality-related landmark documents.

The drivers of this significant policy change were national skills shortages and rapid technological and demographic change in Australian workplaces and the subsequent need for urgent award restructuring and a broader base of higher-level skills in the economy. There were also significant deficiencies in the national training system (in flexibility, breadth, quality, consistency and equity) that had not been addressed by previous governments and were now seen to be impeding economic development.

The first policy statement (Dawkins & Holding 1987) raised concerns about the large numbers of young people leaving school and not continuing onto vocational preparation (Dumbrell 2004). The poor uptake of new traineeships was a related concern. This statement argued for a better integration of employment, education and training, more flexible training routes for existing workers, including through the recognition of prior learning (RPL) (Ryan 2011), and improving the quality and quantity of training. It also recommended raising industry's commitment to (and investment in) the sector.

The second statement, Dawkins (1988a), focused on how to increase industry commitment and recommended a training levy. The third statement, Dawkins (1988b), outlined the implications of award restructuring for the training sector and principles for reform; notably CBT and industry-based training (Goozee 2001). The last statement (Dawkins 1989) prioritised reforms for a more broadly-based, modular VET system with improved training infrastructure. The overall aim of the reforms was higher quality, 'optimal levels of skill formation' and employment for enterprises, and improved career opportunities for individuals, as FitzGerald (1994, p.ii) later reflected.

The reports were highly critical of TAFE (Ryan 2002). The shift to on-the-job training and CBT were demanding new and more flexible teaching and assessment practices and TAFE was seen to be out of date. To improve the efficiency, quality and relevance of the sector, Dawkins proposed increasing the influence of industry (and unions) on the purpose and directions of VET policy and curriculum development. This cemented VET in an economic (skills) dimension of quality and made judgements of the sector's quality increasingly contingent on its relevance, flexibility and responsiveness to industry. There was, however, real growth in national cooperation and innovation during this era (Ryan 2002) but a gradual diminishing of provider influence on curricula design (Ryan 2019). 

1990: Contestable training markets

The landmark Deveson report (1990), Training costs of award restructuring, continued the Dawkins reforms by reviewing the implications of award restructuring in industry for TAFE and the role of public, industry and private providers in expanding training provision. Training was now a major issue on the industrial relations agenda due to unmet demand and concerns about future demand (Deveson 1990). Neither publicly-funded or industry-funded training were delivering the quantity or mix of training required for industry restructuring (Dumbrell 2004). In addition, low levels of literacy and numeracy in the workforce were posing major barriers to further training and the system still suffered from a lack of national recognition of training, weak links between the training system and industry and inadequate levels of funding.

Like Dawkins, Deveson was highly critical of TAFE's inflexibility and lack of client focus. TAFE institutes, he wrote, had 'little regard to market demand' or cost-effectiveness and this was impeding their capacity to compete in training markets (Deveson 1990, vol.1, p.11). The most consequential recommendations Deveson made in relation to VET quality were to:

1. Broaden the provision of VET to a 'different mix' of providers to give industry greater influence over (and ownership of) training processes, content and outcomes, and
2. Implement competitive training markets in all states and territories. 

To support demand for on-the-job training, Deveson recommended modularising curriculum and increasing self-paced and computer-assisted teaching (Deveson 1990, vol.1, p.20). To improve the quality of TAFE, he advised more flexible employment arrangements, CPD for the workforce and targets to improve the performance of institutes, including for entrepreneurial activity and sharing of resources with other providers (Deveson 1990, vol.1, p.67).

Deveson's argument for more competition in VET, and for national consistency in curriculum, delivery and regulation, reinforced the economic (skills) view of VET and consistency, fitness for purpose and cost efficiency dimensions of quality. At this time, Australian governments were adopting managerialism and microeconomic reform (Ryan 2002), which brought the language of corporate planning, measurable goals, consumers and clients and the evaluation of outcomes to VET's quality lexicon. Deveson, however, warned of over-regulation, recommending that it should be undertaken with a 'light hand' and 'not be overly intrusive or expensive' (Deveson 1990, vol.1, p.66). 

1991: An integrated apprenticeship and traineeship system

The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and training (HRCEET) landmark report, Skills training for the 21st century (HRCEET 1991), published the same year, reviewed the apprenticeship and traineeship scheme. Referred by Dawkins, and triggered by an Auditor-General's report, the review found that the scheme was not providing the skills industry needed or meeting the needs of growing numbers of young students. The limited number of occupations offering apprenticeships, rigid demarcations between these occupations, the time and craft-based structure of apprenticeships and a lack of mechanisms for further learning were major restrictions (HRCEET 1991). In addition, traineeships were suffering from a lack of 'skills recognition, mobility between employers and career advancement' and had not attracted enough students, especially females (HRCEET 1991, p.32).

HRCEET was also critical of TAFE's lack of autonomy, adaptability and poor links with local communities, industries and schools and, like those before it, called for a national framework for the recognition of training and improved credit transfer and articulation between education sectors. It also called for the integration of apprenticeships and traineeships into one single entry-level national training system and for perceptions of VET as inferior to the other education sectors to change. National registration for private providers and more resources for TAFE were also recommended. 

1992: The endorsement of key competences

The following year, the landmark Mayer report (1992), Key competencies, proposed seven key competencies¹², similar to those proposed earlier, but with greater emphasis on creativity, initiative, entrepreneurialism and critical thinking (Mayer 1992). This report led to the endorsement of these competences, which was to influence policy regarding generic skills for decades to follow (Guthrie 2009).

An important contribution Mayer made to VET quality was expanding the definition of competency to include the capacity to transfer knowledge to new tasks and situations, which he said required the ability to grasp 'the principles behind actions' and perform the 'skilled application of understanding' (Mayer 1992, p.7). Mayer also proposed the now familiar principles to guide the quality of assessment (validity, fairness and reliability) as well as exploring 'an applied approach' to teaching and learning (Mayer 1992, p.10) and substantial CPD for teachers in how to implement key competencies, bringing an educational view back to VET and its quality.

1992: Vocational training in schools

That year - 1992 - also saw the publication of the landmark Carmichael report (1992), The Australian Vocational Certificate Training System. This report outlined a staged strategy for a new entry-level vocational system in schools at Australian Standards Framework (ASF) levels 1-4, based on CBT called the Australian Vocational Certificate Training System (AVCTS). The objective was national consistency and improved 'coverage, quality and equity' (Carmichael 1992, p.vii). The AVCTS featured multiple pathways between ASF levels, credit transfer and RPL, the Mayer competencies and more options for Year 11 and 12 students to acquire vocational competencies to level 1. Work-based learning during school years and/or structured work experience after completing school were key elements of the system (Carmichael 1992). TAFE would focus on ASF level 2 to Diploma and training would be opened up to other providers under a national registration system.

Carmichael advised establishing a new independent tripartite body to coordinate national industry training advice for greater consistency in the application of CBT, creating local networks of providers with closer links to enterprises and the development of curriculum to facilitate on-the-job training. He also recommended increasing the use of 'contextual'¹³  and 'open' teaching methods and more funding for CPD for teachers (Carmichael 1992, pp.4-5, 11). 

1994: A review of the national VET reforms

One year later, a review of the VET reforms commissioned by ANTA was published in the landmark FitzGerald report (1994), Successful reform: competitive skills for Australians and Australian enterprises. Led by Vince FitzGerald, a micro-economist (Ryan 2002), this review focused on the quality of delivery and assessment and 'best practices' in VET providers. Employers were not engaging in VET reforms and the number of young Australians achieving a post compulsory qualification had fallen significantly below the OECD average.

Fitzgerald found that key elements of the reforms were not working well together. National curriculum was impeding the adoption of more flexible and modular training 'products' and significant issues regarding assessment still remained 'unresolved' (FitzGerald 1994, p.iii). He advised 'managed microeconomic reform' of the publicly funded VET sector (FitzGerald 1994, p.ix), which reflected National competition policy (Hilmer 1993) and the adoption of New Public Management principles by governments at the time. This reform required central government (policy, regulatory and purchasing) to separate its role from service delivery and become purchasers rather than providers of training.

To improve the quality of delivery, FitzGerald recommended a new national competency standards framework and measures to evaluate both 'skill formation outcomes' in enterprises and employment outcomes for individuals. He framed quality in an economic and an individual dimension using the language of microeconomics (supply and demand, performance metrics, user choice and products). While the report did acknowledge VET's social role, it paved the way for the secctor to be outsourced and privatised (Zoellner 2019).  

1996: Barriers to apprenticeships

Also commissioned by ANTA, the Marshman report (1996), The employment of apprentices: the barriers, investigated the decline in apprenticeship commencements in traditional trades (building, electrical and engineering) occurring at the time. Marshman concluded that the decline was not due so much to inadequacies in the training system as much as poor vocational preparation in schools, aspects of employment and industrial relations, the poor status of the trades, an increase in the number of university places (and priority accorded to them by schools and careers counsellors) and the impact of industry restructuring on employers (Marshman 1996). He did however, question the quality of training in TAFE and of vocational training in schools, particularly when either contributed to an apprenticeship, and/or was delivered by teachers without the appropriate skills and work experience. 

If quality is not acceptable to industry and to the expectations of young people, Marshman wrote, it runs the risk of 'achieving less than nothing' (Marshman 1996, p.11). Increasing the number of pre-apprenticeship courses and giving industry the authority under legislation to register and audit providers were also key recommendations.

The post-Dawkins era

2004: A review of Training Packages

Training Packages had been in operation for seven or so years when the landmark document, Moving on: report of the high level review of Training Packages (Schofield & McDonald 2004a) was released. They were by this time producing labour market and educational value but concerns were growing about their purpose, quality (design, content and delivery) and capacity to keep pace with changing labour market and student needs. Fractures were also evident

between old industries and emerging ones; between manufacturing and service industries; within occupational hierarchies and between occupations; between policy and practice; between education and training sectors; and between VET practitioners and industry (Schofield & McDonald 2004a, p.14).

A major quality issue identified in the report was 'unacceptably high' levels of confusion among providers about how to work with Training Packages, largely due to their low specification for teaching, learning and assessment compared to traditional curriculum (Schofield & McDonald 2004b). There was also confusion about how occupational standards (specification of work performance) differed from training standards (which were designed to govern the quality of curriculum and delivery). A lack of funding for providers to implement Training Packages, the adequacy of the AQTF and increasing casualisation of the VET workforce were also identified as major issues.

Schofield & McDonald (2004a) made numerous recommendations to improve the quality of Training Packages, which included a 'new settlement' on their purpose, more faith in the professionalism of VET teachers and less reliance on rules and regulations (Schofield & McDonald 2004a, p.13). They also advised clearer descriptors for VET qualifications in the AQF, stronger mechanisms to ensure the validity, reliability and consistency of assessment and strengthening provider input into Training Package development. Better guidance for providers on clustering skill sets, reducing duplication and incorporating generic skills,¹⁵  and more research into VET pedagogy were also recommended (Schofield & McDonald 2004a). 

The authors challenged the simple definitions of competency underpinning Training Packages and the language they used (such as product). Both components, they wrote, underestimate the complexity of interactions between individuals and organisations that occur during training and the level of skill required by VET teachers to teach well, highlighting the value of teachers' skills, knowledge, creativity and professional judgement to quality. They also highlighted the need for stronger connections between national priorities, market intelligence and Training Package development. 

2005: A more streamlined VET system

The following year the Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) subsumed the role of ANTA and proposed a more streamlined national training system aligned with the industrial relations changes in the Government's WorkChoices Act (Ryan 2011). Models for a new system were proposed in the landmark report Skilling Australia: new directions for vocational education and training (DEST 2005).

Quality was now the highest priority for training policy. There were major skills shortages in a wider range of traditional trades (building, electro-technology, commercial cookery, hairdressing, automotive and manufacturing) and more rapid developments in technology in many sectors of the economy. Almost half of the workforce were employed on a part-time, casual and contract basis and the numbers of students and mature aged workers undertaking VET qualifications were declining.  Also of concern, achievement by Indigenous students at Certificate III level or higher remained very low (Ryan 2011).

To address these and other quality and performance issues troubling the VET sector, DEST proposed that business and industry should lead the system at all levels (from policy priorities to delivery). The Department also recommended 'more appropriate governance, accountability and operational arrangements' through a national governance and accountability framework (for legislation, funding and planning) as well as a national skills framework (DEST 2005, p.1). Quality would become a national and multi-faceted approach to reducing red tape, which swung the debate sharply back to an economic, fitness-for-purpose, manpower perspective. 

2009: A new national governance and regulation system

The final quality-related landmark document, Foundations for the future: proposals for future governance, architecture and market design of the national training system (Skills Australia 2009) argued similarly for a more coherent approach to tertiary education and a single independent national tertiary regulator and influenced the National Agreement for VET of 2009 (Bowman & McKenna 2016). The national VET debate had now shifted from skills shortages to the risks of unemployment, falling industry engagement, 'high wastage' due to high non-completions and uneven participation in higher VET programs by students from lower socio-economic groups (Skills Australia 2009).

The report proposed expanding contestability but with 'stronger safeguards' to ensure the quality of training (Skills Australia 2009, p.16). It also proposed strengthening industry's role through new governance arrangements,¹⁷ but only if these arrangements allowed providers to see they were 'equal and valued partners in the sector's policy, planning and future development' (Skills Australia 2009, p.19). A new regulatory body with authority 'to drive the collection, reporting and improved accessibility' of provider information and strengthen the AQTF's risk management protocols (Skills Australia 2009, p.4) was also recommended. This report reinstated industry's position at the forefront of VET policy and quality, curriculum and funding decisions, diminishing an educational perspective.

The post-landmark era

2011: Improving the quality of teaching

The first post-landmark report of significance to VET’s quality debate was The quality of teaching: final report and recommendations (Wheelahan & Moodie, 2011). Commissioned by the Australian College of Educators, this report made a series of recommendations to improve induction, preparation and CPD for VET teachers. It also provided insights into what teachers need to be able to teach well, including:

to demonstrate high levels of autonomy, the capacity to solve problems in complex situations, and the knowledge and skills needed to understand how people learn and how to teach. Teachers and trainers need to engage with a professional body of knowledge (Wheelahan & Moodie 2011, pp.41-42).

VET teachers were not, as landmark documents had tended to portray, a homogenous group working  with homogenous groups of students in homogenous contexts. Instead, Wheelahan & Moodie described the increasingly diverse 'purposes, contexts, outcomes, occupational fields, and students' VET teachers needed to deal with (Wheelahan & Moodie 2011, p.41). They called for greater professionalisation of the teaching workforce through: 

• a national professional body for teachers,
• standards for teaching and training,
• improved data collection about the teaching workforce,
• entry-level and continuing teacher qualifications aligned to teaching roles, CPD (including industry currency programs),
• mentoring programs,
• more flexible pathways for industry experts to become VET teachers, and
• a system of master practitioners and cross-sectoral teaching (for teachers to work across schools, universities and VET). 

Further, to improve overall quality in VET, Wheelahan & Moodie recommended the external validation of assessment and VET qualifications, the implementation of a national student satisfaction survey and more research into the 'knowledge base' of teaching in VET's disciplinary areas. This, they said, would build a foundation for scholarship (Wheelahan & Moodie 2011, p.63); an idea later pursued by Williams et al. (2013) and Williams (2013) as more VET providers were offering higher education. Wheelahan and Moodie's report pivoted the quality debate sharply back towards an educational focus.

2011: Analysis of the VET workforce

In 2011, the Australian Productivity Commission published its report, Vocational education and training workforce (Productivity Commission 2011). This massive report considered VET's current and future challenges and their implications for the VET workforce, providing an extensive analysis of its demographic and socio-cultural composition, working conditions and qualifications for teachers at an aggregate level. The report's objective was to determine if this workforce could deliver on COAG targets for higher qualifications and skills-deepening in the workforce.

The Commission found that while employers and students were mostly satisfied with VET, it  was concerned about barriers to cross-sector boundaries, Indigenous workforce capability, and an increasingly ageing and casualised VET workforce, especially teachers and relatedly, a lack of consistency in the quality of teaching and assessment. There was a strong case, the Commission argued,

for improving the efficiency and productivity of the [VET] workforce through adoption of more contemporary work practices and governance frameworks, particularly in the TAFE sector (Productivity Commission 2011, p.xxxix).

VET teachers, the report advised, should have at least basic educational capabilities (Productivity Commission 2011). In relation to TAFE, the Commission recommended more flexible industrial relations settings and autonomy for institutes. In relation to overall VET quality, it called for the collection of better and more consistent data about the VET workforce, particularly about the private VET sector, improving the quality of policy planning and development and more government involvement in VET regulation to address 'market failures' and quality issues (Productivity Commission 2011, p.57). 

The report was considered controversial for deciding that the Certificate IV in TAA was an appropriate minimum qualification for VET teachers, if taught well, even though many in the sector at the time were questioning its adequacy to prepare teachers in appropriate pedagogies and in assessment theory and practice (NSSC 2013). Although written from an economic (human capital) perspective, the Productivity Commission acknowledged VET’s contribution to social inclusion and civic participation as one of three primary objectives for the sector.

2013: A review of regulation

Not long after, a review of standards for the regulation of VET was undertaken by the NSSC, led by John Dawkins as Chair. The report, Improving vocational education and training: the case for a new system (NSSC 2013), called for reform to the standards to ensure that qualifications issued by RTOs were consistent with Training Package and Accredited Course and AQF requirements and, importantly, that RTOs were operating ethically. There was, by now, significant diversification, growth and change in the number and type of providers and increasing reports of unethical behaviour by some providers and education agents in relation to VET FEE-HELP.²⁰

While the NSSC found many instances of excellent quality in RTOs, it also found highly variable teaching quality and qualification outcomes across the sector. In addition, standards were unclear about their expectations, were too focused on inputs rather than outputs and were imposing increasing burdens on providers, who were expressing concerns about compliance requirements. The report also raised the severe lack of reliable and comparable information about RTOs available to the public (Bowman & McKenna 2016) and the competency of the VET workforce, including its leaders, as major quality issues. Leaders, it said, were too focused on business management and not enough on educational program design and delivery. The industry currency of teachers and assessors and the quality of the Certificate IV in TAA were also raised.

The NSSC proposed a new regulatory framework to improve the quality of training and assessment that would better reflect growing competition and diversity in the training market (NSSC 2013). This represented was a 'softer' risk-based regulatory approach aimed at influencing RTO behaviour and quality assurance processes but with sanctions, conditions and penalties for poor performing RTOs.

2018: A review of ASQA and quality frameworks

In 2018, Professor Valerie Braithwaite led a review of ASQA and the legislative and quality frameworks under which it operated. The report, All eyes on quality: review of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (Braithwaite 2018), found significant concerns among RTOs about ASQA's regulatory approach, notably: the compliance burden (especially the amount of documentary evidence required), inconsistency in auditing, difficulties in making sense of ASQA's regulatory approach and a disconnect between what they and ASQA thought was important to VET regulation. Braithwaite also expressed concerns about the quality of teaching, the professionalism of teachers, the ethics of RTOs (related to student protection and wellbeing) and the challenge for AQSA in regulating over 4,000 RTOs from high performers to those 'on the edges of almost criminal enterprise' (Braithwaite 2018, p.7).

Rather than tightening quality standards, Braithwaite advised regulators to focus on how well RTOs set their own standards and then checking to see if they were being met. ASQA, however, needed access to real-time data at a systemic risk level (an industry for example) and individual provider level to adopt this approach, which in turn required improvements in data collection, analysis and circulation. Braithwaite also recommended raising the bar for provider registration and deepening the commitment of teachers to continuous improvement, cautioning against reporting requirements that 'crowd out' teaching and homogenise the sector (Braithwaite 2018). Amending the legislative framework to increase the frequency of data provision to the NCVER by RTOs to quarterly was also recommended along with the creation of a Master Assessor position and external assessment for 'high risk VET' (Braithwaite 2018, p.8). 

2019: An expert review of the VET system

The following year, the Australian Government released the report, Strengthening skills: expert review of Australia’s vocational education and training system (Joyce 2019). This report drew on earlier recommendations to improve the sector’s quality and reputation (e.g., Wheelahan & Moodie 2011; Bradley et al. 2008; Braithwaite 2018; Dawkins et al. 2019; Productivity Commission 2011), including through graded assessment. A number of reforms had been implemented by this stage (including the NQF, the Unique Student Identifier (USI), a VET Information Strategy and actions to address VET FEE-HELP issues) but significant concerns still remained about the quality of teaching, VET in schools and traineeships.

Joyce was concerned that employers' confidence in VET was continuing to decline, as were government-funded enrolments as fewer young people aspired to VET due to its less prestigious status compared to universities (Joyce 2019). He was also concerned that good providers were leaving the sector due to the 'regulatory regime' (Joyce 2019, p.36), highlighting the slow development of qualifications, complex and confusing funding models, poor access for disadvantaged learners and ASQA's regulatory approach as major contributing factors. Joyce also pointed out that collective funding for VET had reduced by seven per cent compared to the preceding decade, while funding and schools had significantly increased.²²

The Joyce report proposed 71 recommendations to upgrade VET's architecture in the immediate, medium and longer term. These included: strengthening quality assurance, speeding up qualification development, simplifying funding and skills matching, improving career information and pathways for secondary school students and improving access to VET for disadvantaged Australians. Recommendations for the longer-term related to the inclusion of formal work-based elements in all government funded qualification-based VET qualifications and placing 'work-based learning at the forefront of Australian skills development' (Joyce 2019, p.29). Joyce also advised a 'true industry-owned approach to qualification development', and proposed a new National Skills Commission (NSC) to support this objective. 

2024: A VET Workforce Blueprint

The NSA led to the most recent substantial report on the VET workforce, VET Workforce Blueprint (Skills and Workforce Ministerial Council 2024)²³, which identifies opportunities and actions to improve retention, development, and career progression for the VET workforce as Wheelahan and Moodie (2011) and the Productivity Commission (2011) had earlier. The actions of most relevance to quality are:

• Making it easier for high-quality teachers, trainers and assessors to enter and stay in the VET workforce (Opportunity 3) to be achieved through investment in new initiatives to attract people into VET and either scaling up existing initiatives and/or pilot new models to improve workforce capacity, capability and career pathway development,
• Supporting professional learning, career progression and industry currency (Opportunity 4) to be achieved by implementing 'targeted professional learning to address key industry and pedagogical priorities, including embedding best practice in inclusivity, respect and gender issues into training delivery and VET workforce culture' (Skills and Workforce Ministerial Council 2024, p.vii), and
• providing more support for early career teachers, trainers and assessors (Opportunity 5), which can be achieved by monitoring and evaluating the impact of the Training and Education (TAE) Training Package to ensure it supports teachers, trainers and assessors and promotes ongoing practitioner development and achievement of higher-level qualifications.

Also of relevance are: Opportunity 6: Developing and resourcing staff to support learners with diverse and complex needs; and Opportunity 7: Reducing administrative and compliance burden. The report also advised further monitoring and evaluating of the Training and Education (TAE) Training Package to determine how well it prepares and supports teachers, trainers and assessors.

2024: Reform to VET qualification design

Requirements in the NSA for trusted and relevant VET courses to be available at the right time, led to Skills Ministers agreeing to a new, purpose-based approach to VET qualifications design. The final report of the Qualification Reform Design Group (QRDG), Unlocking the potential of VET: improving the relevance and transferability of vocational education and training qualifications (QRDG 2024), advised moving away from a one-size all approach to qualification development to a simpler, less complex design focused on applied knowledge and skills that can meet a range of purposes. The QRDG proposed three distinct purposes:

1. Occupation: maintaining a level of specificity within units and qualifications (e.g., safety or licensing requirements) but unlikely to change substantially from the current approach.
2. Industry: focusing on preparing learners for multiple related occupations, while retaining industry relevance.
3. Vocational learning and cross-sectoral: providing additional opportunities for cross-industry skills, foundation skills and models beyond units of competency (QRDG 2024).

The new qualification design includes traditional units of competency, foundation skills and new units of competency based on an Application of Skills and Knowledge (ASK) template. The aim is to make knowledge a central feature of VET qualifications, 'rather than a residual component' in units of competency (QRDG 2024, p.i) and ensure 'an appropriate mix of technical and broader skills, including foundation, cognitive, interpersonal and intrapersonal skills' (QRDG 2024, p.vi).

The quality issues leading to these reforms, many of which can be traced in the landmark documents, relate to CBT, the alignment of qualifications with industry, too many and complex units of competency and difficulties updating them, a disconnect between design and delivery, a lack of flexibility and confusion about the purpose of different qualifications. 

A phased implementation is due to commence in July 2025, with the new qualifications available in 2026. A revised Training Package Organising Framework will support training product developers to implement the new qualifications and a new tripartite governance group (consisting of representatives from government, employers and unions) will oversee reforms, with input from Jobs and Skills Australia (JSA) and education experts. While this type of group is familiar in the landmark documents, and has arguably led to the dominance of a skills formation view of VET and VET quality, this paper - thankfully - extends the value (and role and purpose of VET) 'beyond meeting industry demand for technical skills' to promoting social and economic inclusion through an educational perspective (QRDG 2024, p.2). 

Key elements of VET quality

This section analyses key elements of VET common throughout the landmark documents that have contributed to quality at both the macro (policy, regulation and funding) and local levels (providers and the VET workforce). It concludes with reflections on what may be learned from these documents for future quality policy and practice. 

The quality of VET policy

A link can be traced through the landmark documents between the quality of VET policy (planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation) and the quality of VET provision (see Guthrie & Clayton 2018), evident in ongoing changes to VET's governance and regulatory structures, the impacts of under-designed policy (e.g. VET FEE-HELP), the 'hard and fast' nature and short-term focus of VET reforms (Commonwealth of Australia 2014 & 2023), even though many (such as a national system) have taken years to agree and implement, and philosophical tussles over VET's role and purpose. Other significant issues impacting on the quality of policy decisions have been the lack of consistent data about VET's workforce and the sector's complexity, multiple stakeholders and many moving parts (Zoellner 2019).

Echoing through the landmark documents, these issues have arguably impeded the development of clear policy directions and the work of providers over considerable time (Ryan 2019; Harris 2020; Guthrie & Clayton 2018).  The capability of policymakers was also questioned in some landmark and other documents, notably the capacity to articulate a policy vision and plan initiatives to achieve it (Skills Australia 2009) and to undertake research and evaluation to support good policy development (McDonald et al. 1993). Guthrie and Clayton (2018) called for more knowledge of VET in policy making circles to support this important work.  

The quality of regulation

Also reverberating through consecutive landmark documents is an increasing interest in tightening regulation to control the quality of VET and the behaviour of providers, accompanied by calls for more flexibility and responsiveness to industry and students. We can see how the regulation of VET evolved from a jurisdiction-only responsibility (prior to ASQA) to a national approach (with some jurisdictional responsibilities) agreed to by states and territory governments through the NFROT (1992), ARF (1998) and AQTF (2002). After 2007, the regulatory emphasis shifted to continuous improvement and an outcomes-based auditing approach but returned to tighter prescription in 2010 (NSSC 2013), likely due to rapid growth in private providers and VET scandals. 

In 2013, several reviews (Noonan & Condon 2013; NSSC 2013; PricewaterhouseCoopers 2013) called for greater clarity of the meaning of quality in VET and better communication and guidance for RTOs in how to meet quality standards. Regulation was tightened further however as concerns about quality grew and measures were taken to 'protect the rights of students' and quickly 'stamp out abuses' (Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment 2015, p.80). Not long after, Braithwaite (2016, pp.46-47) questioned if 'so many requirements, rules, and guidelines', were 'crowding out' a professional culture of pride in teachers and if those responsible for compliance were failing 'to see the wood for the trees'.

In 2019, Joyce cautioned that good regulation should not be about 'catching out poor providers' as much as ensuring that all regulated providers are 'operating confidently and effectively within the regulations' (Joyce 2019, p.39). Focusing on risk, he said, is different to identifying and encouraging quality (Joyce 2019, p.41). However, by the early 2020s, there was significant distrust between the regulator, peak bodies and some regulated RTOs (mpconsulting 2020) and a compliance mindset had pervaded the work of VET providers, especially teachers (Guthrie & Waters 2021). The standards for RTOs are presently being revised to strengthen the focus on self-assurance. 

What stands out in the quality narrative is the inherently contradictory nature of the terms used in arguments for reform, notably: consistency versus flexibility, standardisation versus innovation, regulation versus responsiveness (to industry). One can also see how ideals for standardisation and consistency became increasingly unattainable as the sector expanded and diversified. 

The status and funding of VET

The third quality-related theme running through the landmark documents is low status of VET in comparison to schools and higher education (e.g., Martin 1964; Kangan 1974; HRCEET 1991; Marshman 1996). Early on, Martin (1964) recognised that the role of technical education was under-valued and its status needed to improve. HRCEET (1991) attributed VET’s low status to a strong focus on tertiary entrance by schools and the recreational nature of many TAFE courses and low esteem of TAFE careers, including the trades. Status clearly mattered in VET policy and funding decisions too. As Braithwaite (2016, p.45) concluded, VET 'lost out' in the rankings to more academically oriented universities, which contributed to decades of inadequate funding, evident in the landmark documents and the literature (e.g., Burke & Noonan 2008; Noonan 2016; Dawkins et al. 2019; Noonan 2023; Noonan & Pilcher 2023), with major implications for quality as Kangan (1974) explained. 

The quality of Training Packages

The fourth and significant policy-related element in the landmark documents is the quality of Training Packages (and earlier curriculum) going back to the Martin (1964), Tregillis (1969) and Karmel (1985) reports. In the Training Package era, it was Schofield & McDonald (2004a) who raised the structure, content and rules of Training Packages, and underpinning definitions of competency, as major quality issues. Different interpretations of the role of competency standards in the documents were also problematic. For example, Karmel (1985) viewed competency standards as a way to state objectives for schools (and RTOs) to achieve. Carmichael (1992, p.64) described them as a ‘reference point for consistency in outcomes, quality assurance and recognition’.

Other criticisms in the landmark documents included too much focus on skills even in early curriculum (Martin 1964), the loss of curriculum and curriculum expertise at system and provider level (Schofield & McDonald 2004a), barriers to articulation between VET and schools and higher education (Bradley et al. 2008) and the inability of Training Packages to adapt and change to rapidly changing work environments. Beyond these major documents, Training Packages have been too complex, costly and time consuming to develop and difficult to implement (Government of South Australia 2018), have lost disciplinary knowledge (Wheelahan & Moodie 2011), have separated learning outcomes from processes of learning and are too atomistic and prescriptive (Joyce 2019). They have also increased regulatory burdens for RTOs and excluded VET teachers from the development process (Government of South Australia 2018). Joyce (2019) also argued that descriptions of competency have no reference to a benchmark of the time needed to achieve it. This, he said, 

provides a loophole for providers to assert competency when someone has acquired a relatively superficial level of understanding of a topic, with the resulting qualification not differentiating that graduate from someone who has a deeper and more thorough understanding of the skill and can demonstrate the application of the skill (Joyce 2019, p.35).

The quality of VET providers

The discussion thus far shows that much of what providers do is impacted by variables beyond their control. They still however play a critical role in VET quality at local levels and thus frequently feature in the landmark documents, albeit bearing the brunt of criticisms (mostly related to the public sector's lack of flexibility and responsiveness to industry and outdated work practices).  While the quality of providers is multi-faceted (extending to facilities, curriculum, student access and support services, relationships with industry and administration), much of the narrative and associated recommendations in the landmark documents relate to the quality of the VET workforce. A strong message running through them is that teaching sits at the heart of quality and that teachers need the right organisational contexts (cultures, systems, employment conditions, curriculum, physical facilities, support and resources) and adequate preparation and development to teach well. The quality of leadership and management in providers is inferred in these narratives.

A significant body of VET research has focused on this and other workforce quality issues (Mitchell et al. 2006; Harris et al. 2007 & 2008; Callan et al. 2007; Guthrie 2008; Smith & Hawke 2008; Simons et al. 2009; Wheelahan & Moodie 2011; Tyler & Dymock 2017; Guthrie & Jones 2018; Jeon et al. 2021; Misko et al. 2021, among others), mostly in the public sector. Relatively little research has been undertaken into private VET providers, as the Productivity Commission (2011) highlighted, except for some notable exceptions (Barnett 1997; Harris et al. 2006; Guthrie 2008; Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment 2015; NCVER 2016). 

The quality of teaching

The prevailing interest in improving the quality of teaching in the landmark documents goes back to the Martin report (1964), which recommended establishing Institutes of Colleges in each state to improve the quality of both curricula and teaching. Tregillis (1969) also emphasised the importance of teacher training and CPD to teaching quality, drawing on recommendations made by UNESCO and the ILO in 1962. Training for teachers he said, had not received sufficient attention and ‘minimum educational qualifications’ were required (Tregillis 1969, pp.65-66). Kangan (1974) too argued for teaching qualifications and a national inquiry into teacher preparation. 

The Fleming report (1978) referred to the ‘hitherto unrecognised’ field of teacher education in TAFE and recommended induction and initial training for new teachers, a study of ‘the needs of the TAFE teacher’ and better supervision and counselling for beginning teachers (Fleming 1978, p.76). Carmichael (1992) highlighted the importance of teacher training to the success of Dawkins’ reforms but ironically, reduced the role (and identity) of teachers to industry trainers (Seddon 2010), diminishing understanding of its complexity and the need for initial training and CPD. One might argue that this had a significant impact on teaching quality into the future. Schofield & McDonald (2004a) called for greater recognition of the professionalism and professional judgment of VET teachers, which was echoed by Wheelahan & Moodie (2011) some years later who called for a national body for VET teachers to oversee professional standards and CPD. 

Much of the teaching quality debate, especially in the post-landmark era, has centred on the quality and appropriateness of the Certificate IV TAA and subsequent TAE, as discussed earlier. Originally designed for workplace trainers (as the Certificate IV in Workplace Training and Assessment), this qualification has been roundly criticised for not adequately preparing beginning teachers, particularly in pedagogic and assessment theory and practice (Misko 2015), how to deal with learner diversity (Clayton et al. 2010) and for its inconsistent and often poor delivery and assessment (Joyce 2019). When one talks to teachers, broader issues impacting on teaching quality come to view such as their changing role over time, diminishing resourcing for teaching and a compliance approach to quality (Braithwaite 2018; Guthrie & Waters 2021).

Reflections

Reflecting on VET's quality history as told by the landmark documents, we see how quality has been shaped by the ideologies and priorities of governments as they responded to evolving social and economic conditions of the day in Australia and internationally. We also see how the policy landscape in which VET providers operate evolved, who made the decisions that shaped it (Zoellner 2019) and what counted for quality in each era of reform.  

Consistency in the recognition of VET outcomes, tensions between state and territory and national priorities, variable teaching and assessment quality, limited articulation and pathways within and between education sectors, the capabilities of the VET workforce, the flexibility and responsiveness of providers and VET qualifications, diminishing levels of funding, and the absence of appropriate data and information about VET and its workforce have been persistent issues that have led to ongoing perceptions of a quality deficit in VET and the need for frequent policy interventions to address it. The incessant and rapid nature of these interventions raises questions about how well they were able to settle in before priorities shifted and new ones rolled in.

Finally, the landmark documents and the literature show us that quality in VET is indeed a multi-dimensional concept that spans the macro (national and state and territory stakeholder and policy interests) and the local (provider, students and teacher interests and priorities) spheres. Quality is complex and all levels need to work together to sort out competing interests and other issues impacting on it. A key message from the landmark documents is that we need to balance the interests of a skills formation manpower view of VET held by governments (Misko & Circelli 2022) and the broader educational, social and individual development view of quality held by RTOs and teachers. Tensions between these views played out throughout the landmark documents and we can see the impact on quality. Fortunately, we think a better balance is in view.

Footnotes

1. The landmark reports are available at the VET Knowledge Bank. Those addressing quality are denoted with a quality symbol.
2. Much of which has focused on standards, Training Packages, VET-in-schools, leadership at provider level, the VET workforce and the quality of both providers and teaching and assessment.
3. All states and territories transferred their regulatory powers to ASQA, except Victoria and Western Australia. ASQA continues to regulate RTOs in these states offering courses to international students or in other referring states (Bowman & McKenna 2016). VET delivered to international students is regulated through the Commonwealth Education Services for Overseas Students (ESOS) Act 2000 and state and territory legislation that requires RTOs to be registered on the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students (CRICOS). RTOs offering higher education are also regulated by the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA).
4. The first mechanics institute opened in Hobart in 1827 and the first arts school in Sydney in 1833.
5. The Working Man's College in Melbourne (now RMIT University) followed in 1887, the South Australian School of Mines and Industries in 1889, the Sydney Technical College in 1892, and the Ballarat School of Mines in 1870.
6. Liberal studies included economics, geography, government, statistics, and the history of science and technology.
7. Such as libraries, first aid and health services, canteens and counselling services for example (Harris 2020).
8. Acquiring information; conveying information; applying logical processes; undertaking tasks as an individual and undertaking tasks as a member of a group (Karmel 1985, p.191).
9. The policy process is described in Description of the National Training Reform Agenda: draft (ANTA 1994).
10. This time consisting of language and communication, mathematics, scientific and technological understanding, cultural understanding, problem solving, and personal and interpersonal characteristics.
11. These included: teaching, curriculum development, determining client needs, management and administration, updating ones' subject, workplace context, general personal qualities (e.g., critical thinking, adaptability and problem solving) (Scarfe 1991).
12. Collecting, analysing and organising information, communicating ideas and information, planning and organising activities, working with others and in teams, using mathematical ideas and techniques, solving problems and using technology.
13. Contextual pedagogies were described as 'a continuum' between theory and practice that relates curriculum to each student's individual learning needs and life circumstances (Carmichael 1992, p.71).
14. Kangan had recommended a formal research role for TAFE, which eventually led to the establishment of the TAFE National Centre for Research and Development – subsequently becoming NCVER (Dumbrell 2004).
15. Generic skills were defined as: general education, career development, international education, employability skills, language, literacy and numeracy, social and cultural skills; bridging, access, prevocational skills, bridging programs for higher education entry and learning to learn skills (Schofield & McDonald 2004a, p.15).
16. Skills Australia later became the Australian Workforce Productivity Agency (Bowman & McKenna 2016).
17. Including a Peak Industry Advisory Group and a national network of skills planning and industry advisory arrangements.
18. Accredited courses are nationally recognised VET qualifications (but not training packages) approved by a regulator (ASQA, or one of the State regulators) that need to address training needs that are not covered by training packages to be accredited (Joyce 2019).
19. It added tightened registration, a ‘fit and proper persons’ requirement and compliance of learner record systems with the Australian Vocational Education and Training Management Information Statistical Standard (AVETMISS). New providers were now required to provide evidence of intended scope and financial audits (NSSC 2013).
20. The removal of requirements for courses funded through VET FEE-HELP to articulate into higher education had led to some providers enrolling unqualified students in these courses, often leaving them with debt and no qualification (Joyce 2019).
21. Including the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Employment (2014) review of TAFE; two Department of Industry (2014) reports on Training Packages (2014); the Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment (2015) review into private providers; ACIL Allen Consulting (2015) and McKenzie & Coulson (2015) and the Department of Education and Training (2016) review of the quality of assessment (all of the above cited in Wheelahan 2016).
22. Total government university funding had increased by 28% and school funding by 24% over the same period (Joyce 2019).
23. The VET Workforce Blueprint was preceded by the VET workforce study (Jobs and Skills Australia 2024), which provided a comprehensive in-depth analysis of the workforce and proposed a workforce taxonomy.

Attachment 1: Timeline of VET reforms and documents

The table below lists the documents referred to in this report. Landmark documents are in bold.

References

About Melinda Waters

Doctor of Education, University of Melbourne, Master of Business (Organisational Change & Consulting), RMIT. 

Dr Melinda Waters has extensive experience in vocational education and training (VET) in Australia working in a national advocacy and VET policy role at TAFE Directors Australia, as a manager of teaching, quality and business development departments in TAFE and in the provision of professional development for the VET workforce at the VET Development Centre in Victoria and internationally. Prior to that, Melinda owned and ran award winning Hospitality businesses and started her hospitality career as a chef. She now specialises in VET research and has a principal interest in teaching and learning in VET and professional development for VET teachers. View Melinda's work in VOCEDplus.

About Hugh Guthrie

BSc Ed, BSc Hons, MSc (UniMelb), MEd (UniBath). Hugh is an adjunct member of staff at the Griffith Institute of Educational Research (GIER) at Griffith University, Queensland.

Hugh Guthrie has around 45 years' experience as a VET practitioner and researcher. He worked for NCVER between 1987-2011 and later at Victoria and Melbourne Universities. Over this period he undertook and managed a range of significant research and development projects as well as authoring a significant number of academic and other works. Hugh's educational expertise includes: VET workforce development, including improving teaching and assessment skills; VET provider capability; educational pathways, especially those between VET and higher education; VET in schools; international education and training, both on- and off-shore; international partnerships; access and equity issues; apprenticeship and traineeship training; educational leadership, especially of VET providers; and organisational strategic planning. View Hugh's body of work in VOCEDplus.

How to cite this overview