SUBMISSION TO THE VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT ON THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW INTO VET FUNDING. April Introduction

Transcription

1 SUBMISSION TO THE VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT ON THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW INTO VET FUNDING April 2015 Introduction Victorians deserve choice in their vocational education and training opportunities (VET). Since 2010 the state has enabled a range of registered training organisations (RTOs) to apply for government funding to deliver VET to individuals seeking to improve their employability skills or re-train to enter/maintain their place in the workforce of the state. This training market has seen significant changes in where individuals learn and who the funding is provided to. Questions have been raised regarding the quality of (some) training and the appropriateness of (some of) the learning offered and the ethics of (some) registered training providers. The review that the Government has initiated will report on how to improve the quality, stability and sustainability of the Victorian training market. It will also likely recommend alternative VET funding models and settings. Community Colleges Australia (CCA) provides this submission on behalf of (and with significant input from) our members who wish to continue to upskill Victorian s young people and adults and provide learning opportunities for all who seek educational opportunities. CCA wants to ensure the Victorian Government fully comprehends through this submission that for many young, and not so young, Victorians; they will continue to have a range of educational institutes, including community providers, from which to access their training requirements with government assistance provided to them. CCA members all offer a range of programs and services to their local communities, metropolitan and regional, including training services; community services; settlement services; and youth programs. The VET services which are offered include skill sets and full national training package certificates, as well as ACFE-funded (pre-accredited training). Most of the members are also either non-school senior secondary registered providers or have independent schools as part of their business.. Within their local communities, CCA members play an important role in providing training and community services to learners from a broad cross section with particular focus on: disengaged youth; adult learners from refugee/ humanitarian background; adults with less than year 12 equivalent; men over 45; and, the long-term unemployed. Learners at community education providers include adults and young people facing multiple layers of disadvantage including barriers such as homelessness, unemployment, English language / low levels of literacy & numeracy, mental ill-health, and financial hardship.

2 P a g e 2 CCA members focus on community learning responses including for improving disadvantaged learners outcomes. This investment in organisational capabilities in order to offer potential students the best delivery opportunities often means that colleges become more than just educationalists; they can also be de-facto social welfare assistance providers. Alternatives to mainstream learning institutions are vital in enhancing the capacity of skills, including self-esteem across the spectrum of groups who require them. Disadvantaged students may require longer hours for similar outcomes, more 1 on 1 teaching, more wrap around services such as assistance with housing, families, transport, drugs, work ethics. CCA members are deservedly proud of, and should receive better recognition for, the work they undertake to help individuals in their communities achieve outcomes that lead to jobs or pathways to further education. The extensive range of services community education providers offer may not always be able to be fully recuperated from the student when undertaking government funded VET. This can be particularly relevant when learners require assistance with their literacy and numeracy and/or take longer to gain competency than an average student. It is vital therefore that government funding continues to be made available for community education providers. CCA anticipates that the current $1.2B that the Victorian government provides for skills training each year will not increase. However, we outline in this document why it is critical that community education providers continue to receive a fair and equitable proportion of this budget, noting not only the valuable learning and outcomes that have been achieved since 2010 but also that where any surpluses are made from specific training provision, they are put back directly into other services offered by the community organisation. This is not purely an ethical philosophy, as per our member constitutions there can be no profit-taking by directors or shareholders. Finally, in addressing the VET Funding Review requirements, CCA is cognisant of the promises made by the incoming Government for the ACE / community education sector. Specifically that the sector provides flexible and community based vocational, social and community courses using low-cost community infrastructure. In considering the future funding of VET CCA emphasises that the Government continue to support the valuable training undertaken by the sector and ensure: skills training is affordable and accessible for all Victorians Recognise youth unemployment in regional Victoria has reached an unprecedented level Community and adult education continue to be funded for providing the important opportunity to people who are wanting to find their way back into the workforce In terms of the 4 specific commitments made in the ALP Education Election Manifesto CCA highlights the absolute need to provide sustainable funding to the community and adult education sector to ensure the sector can meet the educational and skilling needs of their local communities, including sufficient monies for the needs of disadvantaged and vulnerable learners. The Public Sector Provider, TAFE, is not the only VET component which has been severely affected by government policy changes of recent times. Pressure on the Community Education Providers has included recommendations to reduce their Scopes of Registration, undertake more accredited training

3 P a g e 3 than pre-accredited pathways, and manage with reduce funding rates for foundation entry VET courses. Like TAFE it is time that the sector is recognised for its important contributions to skilling Victorians and it should not be subjected to less funding. Community RTO numbers have decreased in Victoria and there are a wide range of small to medium centres operating in difficult circumstances yet the incoming Government seeks to do more with youth unemployment, youth mental health, school attendance/retention, supporting students with disabilities/learning difficulties, young mums, expanding neighbourhood houses and men s sheds. It is unlikely that new community education providers will be created in the foreseeable future, so this funding review must to address the conundrum of doing more for the disadvantaged and disengaged learner with already fewer providers who are community VET organisations. It is in the context of the above comments that Community Colleges Australia (CCA) provides a response to the questions posed by the VET funding review. We welcomed the opportunity to meet with Mr Bruce Mackenzie, the lead reviewer, and this submission allows for further prosecution of our comments. We have responded in the context of the terms of reference (questions raised) and have also provided data, as requested, in relation to CCA members students and their outcomes. 1. Match training delivery to the growing job opportunities in Victorian industries A significant frustration felt by CCA members over the past 4 years has been that changes made to funding of student contact hours for specific training packages has not correlated to the need of the state and its job opportunities. Whilst CCA would acknowledge that community or personal services may not be seen as sexy in the eyes of policymakers, the reality (and research provided by Industry Skills Councils proves) is that career opportunities in Disability, Aged Care, Children s Services, Hospitality and Retail etc. will continue to grow for some time. In addition, the high capital investment required for manufacturing, construction, bio-technology courses does not allow (in the main) community education providers to offer training courses in these industrial fields. The job opportunities for Victorians need to match not only the state macro employment industries in the future but also the regions and metropolitan local businesses. NFP providers work with individuals to assist them into the local workforce and are well placed to identify what the job roles in their local communities will be. Being able to access public funding remains vital for community education providers to be able to offer training opportunities for their learners that are relevant to the industries in their local communities and it must be at a rate that is equal to any changes which may be made to TAFE. That is, capping based on the type of VET provider would need to be carefully thought through as community providers can already show that they often provide more hours of student learning than can be claimed through the VTG scheme. The potential loss of local community providers offers no equity for the students who prefer to learn at such organisations; especially those who suffer the greatest disadvantage. These students are potential taxpayers and workers of the future and yet they may be restricted from earning capability and business opportunity if there are fewer training choices available to them.

4 P a g e 4 2. Ensure all government subsidised training is high quality CCA and its members emphasise that quality requirements must be equally applicable to all sectors of the VET industry, including community education RTOs. However, the sense of rorting tends to be much more likely associated with private RTOs who have an entrepreneurial and profit approach to consider to their training. With not-for-profit entities, the emphasis is on ensuring surpluses to enable community good and additional social education services and not lining the pocket of individual owners. Some of our members believe that there has been a lack of comprehensive sector knowledge within the departmental staff or appreciation of the segregation between community and private RTOs when VTG compliance and audits have been undertaken in the past. Additionally, in reviews undertaken it should be defined from the outset that there is a clear separation of government funding acquittal and ASQA/VRQA compliance. Firming up the dollars annually by training packages rather than changing funding at a moment s notice should also assist all providers to have consistency and quality within their training, rather than having to change business plans 2 or 3 times within 12 months, which currently impacts on students training. CCA believes this would assist the department as well as providers, as planning would be managed on an annual cycle for everyone and quality would not be compromised for dollars. Community education providers note that the quality of training and volume of learning is assessed either through the VRQA or the National Regulator. In that regard, CCA would welcome audits from the market monitoring unit that reflect/co-ordinate with the VRQA or ASQA and also focus on identifying the training outcomes as well as checking paperwork. Our members consider that it should be possible to ensure audit and compliance requirements match organisation types and are based on previous audit/ compliance history and performance/ relative risk. Currently the funding audit regime is often seen as punitive and onerous and doesn t appear to distinguish between organisations that are low-risk versus those that are high-risk. CCA would recommend that the audit process for VTG is modified to include quality of training delivery (or reviewed from VRQA files) and evidence of support provided to learners. Quality subsidised government training includes both skill sets and full qualifications and small numbers should not reflect lower quality. For example, one CCA member had 818 learners complete accredited courses in While many of those learners completed 1-2 unit courses, such as Forklift out of the Warehousing Package, or Farm Chemical Management out of the Horticulture package, or Food Hygiene out of the Hospitality package, the majority of those enrolments were in courses that had targeted job specific outcomes. Our members can show a strong commitment to not providing training for training sake. Members also have successful outcomes for those learners who may not originally contemplate enrolling in a full Certificate course such as 100% of Cert III in Aged Care students completing their course in 2014, with 30% of those obtaining employment straight away (that the member knows of). A challenge is attempting to stay in contact with all learners when they

5 P a g e 5 leave to know if they actually obtain employment after a course but invariably teachers and trainers receive positive feedback that the course led to an employment outcome. (Please see the data provided at the end of this submission). Another CCA member is currently trialling a Certificate II in Community Services with 13 students in partnership with an employer (they assisted with interviewing prospective students and work placement) with the view to placing students into a traineeship in personal care attendant in a hospital if they successfully complete the qualification and work placement. At the end of 6 weeks into the course there has been only one withdrawal. Another CCA member had 71 trainees achieve competency in 2014 and all continue to work in their chosen field. These are the stories of quality training; that employers are taking on learners from community education providers and are pleased to have them as part of their workforces. 3. Allow rural and regional communities to access training that meets their local needs In making future funding decisions, particularly if it is going to be a capped funding environment, there must be a clear understanding of regional requirements, of actual employment outcomes and opportunities for specific courses delivered. It cannot be a one-size fits all as currently applies. CCA has seen both its members decimated and learners in rural and regional areas of Victoria bereft of local training providers because industries such as agriculture, hospitality and retail and tourism cannot be delivered at break even by community providers. For example, Certificate III in Business Administration is a critical course for young women in regional towns who gain employment (often commencing with a traineeship) in offices of accountants, lawyers, health facilities etc. A valid argument must be mounted for another funding factor for rural/regional locations, other than a weighting, perhaps with a determining factor of population size. It should also be possible with the use of ABS statistics to identify areas of the state where training in tourism and related industries or agriculture and related industries is critical because they are the only employment options. CCA would also raise within the section on regional training disparity, the real challenges facing a proportion of young people, in both metropolitan and regional areas. Several key findings of How Young People are Faring: the national report on the learning and earning of young Australians (Foundation for Young Australians, 2013) point to a mixed picture for young people living in Australia today. Three-quarters (75%) of teenagers and just under one third (32%) of young adults are in fulltime education. However, participation and achievements in education and training can vary considerably between subgroups of young people. More young people are working on a casual basis. It is evident in recent unemployment data that young people are less likely to be in full-time employment and are more likely to start full-time work at a later age.

6 P a g e 6 An estimated 22% of 23 year-olds are not fully engaged in employment, education or training (meaning that they are either not in the labour force, are unemployed or are only working or studying part-time). And retention rates from the Australian Bureau of Statistics Schools 2010 report are shown to be typically between 72% to 82% across years 7 to 12 in Victoria. Community education providers are increasingly working with the young people who are not in traditional schools and are struggling to find/maintain a job. Meeting the needs of this cohort and ensuring they re-engage, pathway back to school or a vocational course with TAFE or a private provider, or gain work is a core attribute of CCA members. It is vital that this is not overlooked when reappraising the requirements that the $1.2B funding must meet each year. 4. Meet community service obligations to support vulnerable and higher needs learners to complete training and transition to employment CCA members are often dealing with a more challenged cohort than other VET providers. With regard to the perception that community education providers have poor outcomes, it should be remembered that contrary to students attending TAFEs and for-profit RTOs, our members deal with a larger proportion of learners with significant barriers specifically more learners who are long-term unemployed, or coming from generational unemployment, have a disability, and/or low educational attainment. People with barriers to learning require support including: regular intervention and follow up to retain their presence in classes additional staff and classroom support for one-on-one support highly skilled teaching staff who can successfully engage the learners flexible, tailored programs with the ability to incorporate skills sets small class sizes delivered face-to-face welfare support and guidance additional administrative support to monitor and track the learner s progress. These factors add significant cost to the operations of organisations who work with these learners, often community VET providers. The VET Funding Reform process needs to ensure that disadvantaged learners have opportunities for basic foundation skills training in order to prepare them for higher level skills qualifications that lead to job opportunities in the future. These learners shouldn t be further marginalised by missing out on pre-accredited pathways training and foundation skill training. CCA recommends that foundation skills training is quarantined to Community Education (including ACE) providers and TAFE only and that it is funded appropriately (per previous subsidy levels in 2013). Ensuring community service obligations can be delivered well will require appropriate funding levels. This is critical for learners accessing courses offered by ACE / community education providers. ACE learner cohorts require more face-to-face hours, more support and more resources (financial and infrastructure). The Government must be prepared to provide discrete funding where need is identified to ensure that the learners who may commence from a lower educational past are still able

7 P a g e 7 to gain vocational skills that will give them the best chance to become productive participants of Victoria s workforce. The funding policy must recognise the special needs of such learners and the unique approach of CCA members and the community sector in servicing / supporting these learners. Accredited training and pre-accredited courses delivered by CCA members is strongly aligned to local employment opportunities and community providers will work with students post training to link them to further training ultimately leading to a job. For example, one member talks of the 650 students they had in full qualification courses in 2014 where 60% gained employment with about 20% going on to further study. The members work very closely with JSA providers their referrals are based on the probability their clients, with our training, will get a job. One member specifically identifies that their Cert III Aged Care course supports a large number of local employers (they are in an area with a large proportion of elderly residents and many Aged Care facilities) and had 94 students (2014) with an 80% employment outcome this must be seen as a most successful course. In addition, and reflecting on community service obligations, many CCA members deliver short course in, for example, Food Handling, Responsible Service of Alcohol, First Aid etc which are all focussed to employment. Generally, there is a 70-80% successful outcome to employment from these courses. CCA reiterates that whilst the majority of students entering into VET are keen, smart, interested, leave school with high academic outcomes etc, the Government must recognise the reality of the minority of learners who also need support to achieve appropriate outcomes (as defined by the Government as entering the Victorian workforce). With limited acknowledgement, financial or otherwise, community education providers have been highly successful in supporting non-traditional learners, particularly cohorts that include: youth at risk young people who have left school not completing Year 10 people with culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds people with a disability disadvantaged women unemployed (long and short term) older isolated adults (particularly living in public housing) homeless people recovering from drug dependency 5. Build a strong and responsive public Technical and Further Education (TAFE) sector Alternatives to mainstream learning institutions will remain important in the future VET funding model, especially those who can enhance the capacity of skills, including self-esteem across a spectrum of groups including those cohorts referred to above. In terms of accounting for future Victorian VET specific government funds, CCA does recommend that there is a need to outline the separate and complimentary roles of the Public system, not for profit community education providers and private for profit providers and develop appropriate funding and contracting arrangements for each. This should include identifying and removing unnecessary and/or duplicated red tape that could be reduced for the community education sector. In a survey of the sector conducted in Victoria

8 P a g e 8 of Learn Local providers 1, 51% of providers indicated that time spent on compliance had more than doubled since skills reform was introduced. A further 41% indicated that it had increased substantially. In terms of maintaining a vibrant TAFE network in Victoria, CCA would note that our members pride themselves as being able to improve student pathways both within and between the education sectors and the workplace. As small to medium providers with specific scopes, CCA members work with both TAFE and private providers to ensure that if our learners are seeking further vocational education after completing a course with them, that they are given every opportunity to pathway easily into another part of the VET sector, often a TAFE institute. 6. Manage training expenditure within the existing vocational training budget while preserving a framework of student driven choices CCA acknowledges that it is likely, given current government budget constraints, that funding for VET will be maintained at $1.2B per annum in the short term. Whatever budget is decided upon, some form of capping of providers is likely. This submission is articulating the need for a strong community education sector, managed and funded appropriately alongside and with TAFE. It should not be assumed that the public provider is the solution for all students seeking vocational skills. There should also be no return to the historic approach where community (ACE) RTOs were given an average funding rate half that of the rate TAFE received for the same course qualification. The compliance and administration costs for a VTG contract are the same regardless of provider type and students are not worth less according to the provider they attend for their training. If quotas are being considered for RTOs, there should also be some consideration given to ensuring that organisations have a critical mass of government funding to support the administration and compliance costs commensurate with receiving a VTG contract. Some CCA members are identifying solutions to share back of house costs in order to reduce the compliance and administration burden. However, given the cohort of the learners that many community education providers work with, it would be very concerning if quotas were given out by the funding body that didn t allow for financial viability. Quotas/contracts could also have the introduction of minimal hours or percentage of nominal hours for delivery and assessment and ensure an appropriate level of workplace placement as a requirement for receiving government funds. The VET system is at times criticised by employers for not providing employees with the right skills to hit the ground running. It will be vital that industry, government and providers co-ordinate to ensure the courses on offer in specific suburbs and regions will not only make people actually job ready but be in the sectors where work roles are available. CCA would also caution any government s policy which may seek to increase the student s investment in their education by paying higher tuition fees. This can be unrealistic for those experiencing dramatic financial and other impediments. This is particularly evident with CCA members and their VCAL students who often come from extremely disadvantaged backgrounds. 1 Member Survey 2014, Association of Neighbourhood Houses and Learning Centres, Victoria

9 P a g e 9 Historically, when the government hourly funding rate decreases, which for many qualifications that CCA members offer it has, providers are forced to increase tuition fees to make running the program viable. Any rise in tuition fees resulting from decreases in the government hourly funding rate only prevents more people from accessing educational programs. In some cases, it is imperative to charge very low tuition fees to make the program affordable for students that will most benefit however, this is contrary to inflexible government policy with the threat that if low or nil tuition fees are detected, the funded hourly rate will reduce, impacting on community RTOs ability to deliver the program. Some CCA members would ask the Funding Reviewers to consider re introducing a minimum fee for all VET programs (including foundation) which has to be applied by all providers irrespective of whether they are Community (Learn Local), TAFE or private RTOs. When a minimum fee existed it created a level playing field as it enabled sufficient funding for smaller organisations to operate. In the current funding environment some private RTOs are charging zero $ for programs as they can operate on far less income because of the scale and size of their operations i.e. large (and they may tend to do substantially less hours face to face, even for low level certificates). This recommendation could be an easy change as it would be at a zero cost to government. 7. Recognise the public and private benefits of training and ensure fees and student costs are not a barrier to participation Community education providers do not intend or set out to create non-compliance within their VET learning methods. On some occasions, and because our members focus is always on the learner, there are errors made with paperwork. CCA believes that in the 4 years that the VTG market program for VET has been in place, our members have enhanced their business operation models through purchasing better Student Management Systems and employed more (paid) administrative staff. This has come at some not insignificant cost which is difficult to recoup as community entities. As noted earlier in this submission, the level of compliance and administration that is required to be undertaken by VET organisations with VTG contracts is extremely high. It remains a constant challenge for not for profit organisations to balance the costs of learning for students, namely the employment of trainers and assessors versus the cost of employing administration staff to complete the increasingly complex plethora of paperwork and data submitting. The public benefits to training a person into a job, or re-skilling someone to a new role includes more cohesive and socially progressive communities. The private benefits include the development of self esteem and worthiness an individual will feel on achieving vocational success. ACE/community education providers need to be recognised like the TAFE sector as critical to the learner cohorts they work with/support and fee exemptions must remain available to those who cannot afford to pay. The public benefit of ACE/community education provision needs to be acknowledged as an important part of the learning trajectory for vulnerable and disadvantaged learners. A potential solution to ensuring student costs do not become a barrier for learners is to have distinct VET funding contracts

10 P a g e 10 for ACE / community education providers that recognise the unique role the sector has. Such contracts would highlight that community education providers are separate and distinct to private, for-profit RTOs. 8. Ensure eligibility to access subsidised training is fair and well-targeted The marketisation of VET has been promoted as better for learners and employers. Competition between public and private providers however, does not always ensure the best use of government funds and may confuse learners, particularly the vulnerable who are often subject to brokers seeking to make quick dollars. Those who lack language, literacy and numeracy skills required to undertake Higher Certificate and Diploma courses are being conned by offers of quick courses/qualifications. Once they complete a qualification, they often struggle to find jobs due to barriers such as poor language and then the learner discovers that they have no further access to government funded training. This VET Reform needs to focus on stopping such unethical behaviour. The cost of training should be appropriate to what learners can afford, including those who suffer disadvantage. Community providers should have discretion to set fees appropriately and not be penalised at audit for the approaches they follow. The following case studies highlight some of the issues: Htoo is a female refugee from Burma in her mid-twenties. She has only been in Australia for a few months and speaks and understands very little English. She recently enrolled in a Foundation (low entry) Course level Certificate but after receiving a letter from her Job Network to attend Certificate II level training pulled out and signed up for the other course. After a few short weeks, she received a qualification but does not have the skills to source employment, write a resume, prepare for an interview. Her English language skills are still low. Harpreet arrived in Australia and was signed up to a Diploma of Children s Services by an RTO. After never attending a single class, she received a qualification through the mail. Yasmin is a 15 year old female who enrolled in a VCAL Program. After one month she wanted to withdraw to go to a private RTO who promised her a VCAL together with certificates in Business, Community Services and Retail qualifications along with a lap-top all very attractive to a 15-year old. Hsar recently arrived from Burma. He was a victim of torture and trauma and still suffers from his pre-settlement experiences. He catches the train to his pre-accredited course at a CCA member venue. He has been approached several times at the station by brokers trying to sell him courses. Once he signed up through fear. Settlement workers at the CCA member are constantly trouble shooting his questions and fears that he will be pulled out of Foundation level EAL. CCA acknowledges that the recent and proposed changes to both brokers and VET FEE HELP will assist in overcoming some of the issues described above. It does not however, resolve how community education providers are to manage learners who come to them to mend their education

11 P a g e 11 and skilling options, who they cannot apply for VTG funding due to earlier unethical behaviour by past RTOs. These learners are often not from a cultural background where complaining is an option. According to the OECD (OECD, 2013), Australia is spending less (public and private spending combined) than the OECD average on all educational institutions, as a percentage of GDP (being sandwiched between Mexico and Estonia). Because of this it may be expeditious to explore alternative programs which could add value to existing education approaches and improve Australia s standing internationally. CCA members seek to develop alternative educational programs to help many people like those identified in the case studies above. Being treated fairly includes the Government recognising the skilling and educational (not welfare) programs we undertake to best benefit the learners who need to learn in the safety of a different type of institution. 9. How other government policy levers may be used to support the quality, stability and sustainability of the Victorian training market Within the constraints of the Government VET Budget and a desire for learners to receive training that will provide a full certificate as an outcome, there is also a need to fulfil the demand from industry for skills sets. Skills sets have been mentioned in dispatches by Skills Councils for many years and reflect the need of industry for formal training that meets targeted and immediate needs for operations. However, the government s two-course rule makes this increasingly prohibitive and difficult. If a student completes a single unit from two different courses at the same certificate level, he or she is precluded from enrolling in a third qualification in their lifetime. This could occur without the person knowing the full impact of an enrolment in a short course, for example, on their future eligibility. Skills sets must be given provision for the learners benefit as well this is what is needed by the cohort we are dealing with to get them a foot in the jobs door as soon as possible, and also by employers. Many of these students don t have the money or the time to do a lengthy full Certificate at this point in their lives. Skills sets need significant consideration as a practical solution for many of the people we are dealing with. We are packaging skills to help make people employable however, we are hampered by the two-course rule, and are forced to charge fee for service, which can put the skills package out of some people s reach. CCA appreciates that the government measures success on course completions. However, skills sets should be recognised as a valid way of meeting the needs of and engaging the unemployed and people with barriers to formal education. The units are accredited so a person could complete the course at some future date when they are better able. It is the job of RTOs to continue the conversation with learners to help them proceed with their learning journey and eventually achieve completion of a full qualification. But community education providers know that sometimes simply ensuring an enrolment, engaging a learner into a classroom and confident through a few units first may be all that can be achieved as a first and medium step.

12 P a g e The implications of recommended reforms for other directly-related areas of education in Victoria (including secondary schooling and the roll out of new Tech Schools, and the higher education sector VCAL funding is often inadequate for the learner cohort entering CCA member alternative secondary school and VETiS programs. The following case studies direct from our members highlight different scenarios currently occurring for a range of CCA members. Current VCAL funding per student is between $7500 and $8000 depending on what VET component is included. However, the base rate is $7.50 for VCAL hours over 1000 hours for the course. It is difficult to get our student cohort (who have significant personal difficulties, often including homelessness) to complete in one year, so this $7500 is usually split over 18 months or longer. This is compared with the school funding rate per student per year of $12,000 plus loadings. At $7500 per student (and the $7.50 rate per hour has been at this level for years), it is increasingly difficult to afford top teaching staff, let alone welfare and support staff and we should be providing excellent teaching staff for this cohort, even if they are not in a mainstream school environment. It needs to be recognised that mainstream school is not the right place for some of these disengaged and disadvantaged learners who are coping with extraordinarily negative personal and social situations, which includes no family and social support to pursue educational outcomes and get a job (in fact, family influences can be negative), alcohol and substance abuse, homelessness etc. More CCA members are considering registering their programs into independent schools in order to access funding that does cover the cost of employing good registered teaching and support staff, and that does provide access to capital grants programs so that the organisation can invest in improving the facilities and learning spaces for these students. VCAL funding through VET delivery (Victorian Training Guarantee VTG) is $7.50 per student contact hour which, if a student attends (and completes) a full year equates to $7,500. There are also some loadings that may apply e.g youth, indigenous and remote. A school funded VCAL (Community VCAL) will receive 95% of the base Student Resource Package (SRP) which is about $6,800. The big difference is that if a student drops out, or attends spasmodically, a Community VCAL provider gets the full $6,800 whereas the VTG funded VCAL provider will only get the pro-rata amount corresponding to the student s attendance. Compare the two scenarios: A VTG funded VCAL may have 30 students. Throughout the year say 50% leave the VCAL program due to finding employment or an apprenticeship (or for social, health or any other reason) the total revenue for the RTO may be only 30 x $7500 x 50% = $112,000. The teachers still have to be employed, the resources still have to be provided, the rent still has to be paid. The compliance for the training delivery still needs maintaining. This scenario is extremely challenging and difficult to manage. A school funded Community VCAL with 30 students enrolled at census days (end of February and end of April) will get 30 x $6,800 = $204,000 in four instalments irrespective of whether the students finish or not. If most students leave the program say at the end of Term 2 or 3 the RTO will still get the full amount of payment. The negative is that students need to be

13 P a g e 13 enrolled at the home school however many do not have a school prepared to enrol them as they have may have been disengaged for some time. Also if a number of schools are referring students then each school requires a MOU which necessitates greater administration and management. A solution could be to have the Department prepare a separate funding model for non-school providers that is not dependent on the VTG funding model through HESG nor on the Schools handing over SRP funding. Another member has had to delay claiming income for VCAL for 8 weeks as exit forms were difficult to get from the various secondary schools. There needs to be more flexibility around this funding RTOs are supporting the program for 2 months before any income can be claimed. In addition, communication with HESG about the process for claiming the various components of the VCAL is unclear or not available. This means it is high risk managing the income as one error can mean that all your income related to that error can be withdrawn from the next payment not to be reallocated until another month later causing a significant financial impact. CCA would recommend that HESG staff meet with/talk to new VCAL providers to minimise any potential impact. All these points highlight that VCAL funding is difficult to manage. Yet our members are increasingly dealing with more youth aged between who do not wish to attend a traditional secondary school and there is a genuine obligation on behalf of the community entity to assist in transitioning these young people back into education. 11. Any related matters The changes to VET policy and funding at all levels of Government in Australia is starting to have severe impacts on the sector. CCA members are facing large numbers of staff turnover, including loss of front line teachers and trainers and back-of office statistical and enrolment people. The education/training/school pathways policies taken by successive Government s including Labor and the Coalition has enhanced to a great degree the administration and compliance requirements of the sector without necessarily highlighting the quality of the sector. With over 4000 RTOs across Australia it is perhaps just a very small percentage who are behaving badly that attracts the media and government bureaucrats attention. Notwithstanding the merits, this bad behaviour since 2008 has led to change after change, disengaged (because of funding restrictions) the staff of various Education and Training Departments, retracted away from a slow, planned and systematic recovery to quick fixes added by more quick fixes and now with another level of Federal impacts of educational upheaval, employment/youth/disability/mental health program changes is causing community education providers to have a sense that they are spiralling downwards and outwards. There is a total disengagement and complete lack of understanding by nearly all persons who are not in a direct delivery job of front line teaching/tutoring or administration as having any concept of what community education providers are facing. Funding agencies and their auditors don t comprehend this and it is disingenuous when they suggest they do understand.

14 P a g e 14 CCA is therefore very thankful to the Victorian Government that they have recognised a need for a comprehensive VET review and we applaud the Minister for undertaking it so soon in his tenure. The statistics in Victoria are very clear in how the change to delivery using government funded skills money has occurred in recent years. We trust this review will acknowledge the importance of all three sectors of VET; TAFE, Private For-Profit and Community Not For Profit and also address clearly the funding implications for community education organisations and the critical role they play in skilling the current and future Victorian workforce. As requested we provide data collected from our members to assist in highlighting the successful outcomes achieved by learners in their organisations. VCAL outcomes 2014 Total students 123 Job 20 Continuing in VCAL (next level) 29 Returned to school 7 VET or university pathway 34 Apprenticeship/ traineeship 1 Unemployed 3 Unknown 8 Other (includes jail, relocated interstate, application to defence forces) 21 VET outcomes 2014 Course Total Enrolled Employment Further study Unknown General one RTO Overall 100% - 64% complete Certificate III In Children s Services An Other RTO reported 92% of enrolled students went on to Diploma or maintained employment after their placement was completed. Cert III Aged Care/HACC Other RTO reported that 97% maintained their employment post-placement. We do not know if any continued to study. Cert IV Disability EAL & Literacy Program 114 Diploma of Children s Services Cert III Business Admin IT Cert II all DES participants so had a much lower (less than half) rate of commencing other courses or employment however we tend to use this course as a foundational skills-building course, so there is minimal expectation of direct employment Cert IV TAE BOUNCE Education Pathway BOUNCE Education Pathway BOSS Education Pathway Reenrolled in course via JCC

15 P a g e 15 RENEW Education Pathway Reenrolled in mainstream school ACFE Pre-Accredited JCC EAL & Literacy Program Outcomes Survey Summary A phone survey was undertaken in 2014 of students who had undertaken courses with a CCA member. Of the 162 students contacted by phone, 74 participated in the survey. 32 were not able to be contacted as their contact number was disconnected and 56 students did not answer on three attempts made. Questions relevant to the Career Incubator Project: 1. Which course did you study? 2. Are you employed? 3. When did you start working? 4. Which field are you working in? 5. Are you studying? 6. What are you studying? 7. Did the (CCA member) course help you find employment or go into further education? 8. Would a Career Development course have been of help to you? At the time of time of the survey, out of the 74 participants in the survey: 64% of those surveyed were employed with 42% starting work in % were employed in the field they studied Children s Services, Education, Aged Care, 17% Children s Services (43% studied Certificate III in Children s Services) 9% in Education (30% studied Certificate III in Education Support) 4% in Aged Care (16% studied Certificate III in Aged Care and HACC) 34% found work in other fields 7% were offered work during their work placement 8% started work immediately after they finished their course 22% were studying at the time of undertaking the survey 4% diploma level 6% certificate level 12% unspecified 89% felt the course they studied at the CCA member helped them find employment or go into further education, with 70% saying yes and a further 19% saying to some extent. 96% felt that a Career Development course have been of help to them

16 P a g e 16 Background to Community Colleges Australia Community Colleges Australia (CCA) is the peak body that represents and provides services to community owned, not-for-profit education and training providers. CCA is committed to assisting our members sustain and grow their businesses, thereby enhancing education opportunities through choice for all Australians. CCA promotes learning innovation for all Australians by delivery that engages with and belongs to communities. Membership comprises long established community learning organisations located in metropolitan, regional and rural locations. The community college members are advantageously placed to provide a focus on student welfare with commitment to the employment outcomes for, and personal development of, the individual. Our vision is for Australia to achieve more dynamic and vibrant communities, informed and empowered through learning. For our members CCA works to increase awareness of the sector and its place in the economic and social fabric of our nation, build business opportunities for our members and advocate at all levels of government on the value of our members undertakings. CCA may be contacted on telephone and at admin@cca.edu.au Kate Davidson Chief Executive Officer