I was interested to see the work undertaken by Jobs and Skills Australia on “…an RTO Typology to add to our understanding of how the VET system operates.” (Source: https://www.jobsandskills.gov.au/publications/rto-typology)
But I’m confused by a few things because it seems the way of looking at RTOs in Australia has gone from perhaps something that is too simple to reflect the diversity to now something that is overly complex.
And aren’t we know talking about Tertiary Education Providers anyway?
Appreciate that a lot of work and thinking has gone into the table below, and it is easier to work with a suggested approach than a blank sheet of paper – what do you think about the table below from the RTO Typology – Methodology Paper?
Providers are not only this or that, but they are also this, that, something from here, there, and another thing again. I can’t see how each RTO could belong to one cluster only as outlined in the core principles from the paper below:
A set of five core principles shaped the form and structure of the typology. These principles are designed to ensure the typology achieves its purpose, assisting JSA to better analyse the vocational training system. Further, the principles serve as indicators with which to evaluate the typology’s effectiveness.
The principles that underpin the typology are:
- Robust: clusters should not change rapidly, providing a future-proof foundation that can be maintained over time. [1]
- Distinct: features that divide each cluster are distinct and clear.
- Meaningful: each segment is large enough to provide useful insight about the VET sector, and the classification overall provides useful groups.
- Comparable: the overall number of clusters is manageable, and the clusters are relatively consistent in size, allowing for analysis of clusters to remain relative to each other and balanced.
- Exclusive: each RTO should belong to one cluster only (i.e. a RTO can only belong to one category, partition, and segment).
Breakdown of Categories, Partitions, and Segments (Reimagined)
Before I work through a suggested framework, I would have expected to see more open consultation and input on something like this, probably NCVER leading the charge as they have so much data and information at their fingertips, and the purpose of this typology being clearer. Is it for government, clients of the VET system such as students and employers, for RTOs (moving to Tertiary Education providers) themselves or other reasons again? How does this framework line up with the best VET and Tertiary Education systems in the world?
So let’s see what it could be made up of…
- Size – micro, small, medium, large (numbers of students at any one time, over a calendar or financial year?)
- Organisation type – TAFE, Universities, Dual Sector, Independent, Association, Government (non-TAFE), Enterprise, School, Social Enterprise, Inactive – where relevant with a note of public or private
- Location – this is interesting because it is about physical location, how about online environments, is it where the provider is or who they are serving? Metro, regional, rural, multijurisdictional – tricky!
- Serving – apprentices/trainees, domestic students, international students, school students, people with CALD backgrounds, Indigenous, people with disabilities, inmates, ex-offenders, employers, clients related to capacity and capability building (for example via Australia Awards and DFAT funded programs)
- Delivery modes – face to face, online, hybrid, full qualifications, short courses, microcredentials
- Industry areas – now is this about which Training Packages, Curriculum and Qualifications you have on scope? So large TAFE providers for example might be Industry specialists in everything? Not so sure about >80% in program and I’d think the providers would like to have more of a say on this category of Program Specialist. And do we need to specifically note First Aid and WHS – that seems odd?
- Funding – public, fee for service, school, apprenticeship/traineeship (remember User Choice funding from back in the day), grants, program, student, employer/organisation, industry, other funding from states/territories outside of the National VET Agreement
- Friendly – in terms of accessibility, breastfeeding, carers, LGBTIQ+ inclusive, parents – this could be a new area to explore based upon what the client needs
- Innovation – application of new discovery technologies (e.g. AR, VR, AI, ML, Holograms etc); commitment to sustainability and UNSDGs; partnerships
What are your thoughts on this approach? If you don’t want to post here, please send an email to wendy@workforceblueprint.com.au, thanks.
[1] This does not preclude changes in the classification of providers over time, which is expected as scope and student demand shift. Instead, the principle of robustness refers to the definition of clusters themselves remaining stable over time, should the models be re-run on different periods.