Looking to upskill? Consider VET programs

As Aussie businesses fight to meet talent shortages, many are upping their engagement with vocational training programs. New data suggests not all providers can guarantee the same quality of outcomes.

In an effort to meet shortages and upskill their workforces, more and more employers are engaging with vocational education and training (VET) programs each year. In 2023, 56.8 per cent of employers used accredited VET training to meet skill needs, while 54.4 per cent used unaccredited programs.

Fresh data from the National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER) has found that not all offerings serve employer needs equally. Specifically, the study found that private training organisations are substantially outperforming their public sector counterparts when it comes to employer satisfaction.

Let’s unpack the research.

How and why do employers use VET?

There are three ways that Australian employers engage with VET:

1. By offering jobs that require vocational qualifications.
2. Employing apprentices and trainees.
3. Using nationally recognised training, other than apprenticeships and traineeships.

Though VET offerings range across all industries – from agriculture to childcare – many commentators are particularly optimistic about its ability to strengthen Australia’s workforce amid the digital revolution.

Though estimates vary, some predict the digital transformation, which some are calling the “Fourth Industrial Revolution”, will disrupt up to 40 per cent of jobs in Australia through automation in coming years. It’s worth remembering, though, that for every job that is automated away, new technologies and wider adoption and development of existing ones could create yet more.

The bottom line: Australian workers are going to need to upskill, and VET programs are one way to get us there.

Employers prefer private

The NVCER report showed that employers prefer independent VET programs over public ones, as reflected by the following metrics:

• Relevance of skills taught: 80.1 per cent approval for TAFE versus 85.7 per cent approval for private courses.
• Condition of equipment and facilities: 74.1 per cent approval for TAFE versus 84.9 per cent approval for private courses.
• Cost-effectiveness of the training: 72.8 per cent approval for TAFE versus 80.6 per cent approval for private courses.
• Flexibility of the provider in meeting employer needs: 66.9 per cent approval for TAFE versus 86.8 per cent approval for private courses.
• Overall satisfaction with training: 76.6 per cent approval for TAFE versus 85.9 per cent.

To summarise, private training offerings are more cost-effective, better equipped, more flexible, and more readily tailored to meet employer demands.

“What the NCVER data confirms is that independent skills training is great for students, great for employers, and great for Australia,” said Troy Williams, chief executive of the Independent Tertiary Education Council Australia (ITECA).

Revamping public training

What the data suggests, said the ITECA, is that state-run training programs need to be updated to meet changing workforce demands and employer expectations. Mr Williams took the opportunity afforded by the report’s publication to voice concerns about the government’s promotion of TAFE over private training organisations.

“Currently, there is a significant push by the government to put ‘TAFE at the heart’ of the skills training system, which many employers are pushing back against,” said Mr Williams.

“Instead, ITECA firmly believes in putting students at the heart of the system, where their freedom to choose their preferred training provider is backed by the government.”