Standing Committee on Employment, Education
and Workplace Relations
This document has been scanned from the original printed submission.
It may contain some errors
Submission 49.1
NATIONAL CENTRE FOR VOCATIONAL EDUCATION
RESEARCH LTD
11 June 1998
You recently e-mailed Mr Chris Robinson requesting additional information
to assist the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment,
Education and Training in its Inquiry into the Appropriate Roles of Institutes
of Technical and Further Education.
Responses to your specific questions are as follows:
Question:
What proportion of TAFE revenues in each State / Territory (or nationally)
is earned outside the publicly funded VET programs?
Answer:
The national VET collection provides information on the funding source
of all delivery captured by collection.
For all delivery in 1996 (ie 294.29 million hours, including personal
enrichment programs), 92.1% is reported by TAFE providers, 5.6% by community-based
providers, and 2.2% by private providers.
There are three identified funding sources for VET:
- delivery funded from recurrent state and Territory allocations for
VET provision, and delivery funded from ANTA growth funds;
- delivery funded from other, speci~c-purpose State and Territory and
Commonwealth allocations (eg Commonwealth labor market programs);
- delivery funded on a fee-for-service basis by individuals or organisations
(eg companies purchasing training for their employees).
Of the total number of hours reported for 1996, 82.2% is associated with
Commonwealth and State recurrent funding (including ANTA growth funds),
5.9% with Commonwealth and State specific funding, and 11.4% with fee-for-
service enrolments. Fee-for-service activity includes overseas full-fee
paying clients, and enrolments in personal enrichment programs.
Question:
What proportion of A CE `graduates' go on to further education?
Response:
There is no current information available on this issue.
In the initial version of the national standard of the VET data collection
enrolling students were asked if they had undertaken studies in the ACE
system.
This question has been dropped because of difficulties in the interpretation
of responses. The question was not answered consistently by students and
the relevance of ACE studies undertaken some years prior to a student
enrolling in a VET course was questioned.
Question:
Table 10.9 (p.61) in Volume 3 of the 1996 Annual Report states 20.9% of
1995 TAFE graduates were in their first full- time job at the time of
the survey. Is this statistic available for 1996 graduates?
Response:
17.7 per cent of 1996 TAFE graduates were in their first full-time job
at the time of the survey.
Question:
Is any data available on the effect that competitive tendering has had
on TAFE `s share of publicly funded VET?
Response:
The scope of the national VET collection has changed substantially in
recent years with more information now being collected on VET provision
in the private sector than was collected in earlier years.
However, the collection does not provide any information on `competitive
tendering'. This information would need to be sought directly from the
training authorities in the relevant States and Territories.
A copy of the paper "Radical Surgery or Palliative Care? The Future of
TAFE" by Kaye Schofield, is enclosed. The paper has now been published
in the book The Market for Vocational Education and Training, edited by
Chris Robinson and Richard Kenyon, NCVER, 1998.
Yours sincerely
Katrina Ball
Research Economist
Back to top