Over many years we have seen VET go from TAFE (more or less) to VET; the rise and fall of ANTA; the coming of CBT and concerns about its prescriptiveness; the growth of industry\u2019s role and influence on VET policy and practice; the use of Training Packages and concerns about them and the increased regulation and oversight of the sector with a focus on its quality and regulatory compliance \u2013 arguably at the expense of a focus on real quality. By any measures it\u2019s a complex sector serving a variety of purposes and with a range of missions. Its funding, however, has been – and continues to be – a challenge.<\/p>\n

At the same time, VET has grown and diversified in terms of its range of offerings, student numbers and variety of provider types. And, while the aim of reform and change has been to enhance and improve VET policy and practice, that has not always been the outcome. This is my rough summary of the ground the paper covers.<\/p>\n

Purposes and roles<\/h2>\n

VET\u2019s variety of purposes and roles carry with them inherent tensions, the paper points out. These include being a tool of economic policy and as a way of meeting the needs of employers for skilled workers whilst also enabling students to explore career options and gain longer term employability and life skills. At the same time the sector also provides foundational skills for those who might need them to pursue life and study options down the track. This is at the heart of the potential social benefits VET offers in tackling disadvantage.<\/p>\n

The paper suggests that these tensions might be overcome by balancing the views of industry and educators in order to develop \u201cmore flexible and adaptable VET graduates.\u201d It also requires a more flexible view about what represent the best outcomes and impacts of VET\u2019s various activities. At its best, however, \u201cone of VET\u2019s key advantages lies in its ability to be a very sharp instrument when pointed in the right direction.\u201d<\/p>\n