Chapter 4 continued
The organisation of ace provision in the states and territories
Queensland
The ACE sector, in Queensland, is largely undeveloped with no formal
infrastructure serving the interests of the sector as a whole. [1]
Responsibility for the ACE sector lies with the Department of Employment,
Vocational Education, Training and Industrial Relations, [2]
the focus of which is `unambiguously on the training market'.
In 1993, the Queensland government endorsed the national policy on ACE
and made a commitment (within the Queensland State Training Plan) to establish
an ACE Council. `Funding of $120,000 has been set aside for this purpose
by the Vocational Education Training and Employment Commission, VETEC.
VETEC has determined that the ACE Council should sit outside the VETEC
structure and will relate to government through the Director-General'.
[3]
Although there are a range of providers, ACE in Queensland predominantly
takes the form of short, fee-for-service courses in TAFE. Within TAFE
there is an ACE Network Support Unit. [4]
`All ACE programs in TAFE Queensland are classified as Stream 1000'. [5]
Approximately 70 per cent of TAFE ACE courses `can be described as delivering
vocational skills'. Courses such as literacy, tertiary preparation and
pre-vocational are not categorised as ACE and fall within the 2000 and
3000 streams of study. [6]
Participation in TAFE ACE over the last four years has decreased. This
has been at an average of 7 per cent across the state. A statistic taken
over the last twelve months indicates a 16 per cent drop in enrolments
in rural areas. [7] The decrease in participation
has occurred in both recreation and vocationally oriented courses and
is occurring particularly in rural areas. Enrolments by concession card
holders have decreased by 36 per cent. [8]
Women between the ages of 20 and 40 represent the largest proportion of
enrolments (70 per cent), a position consistent with the national profile.
[9]
The provision of ACE by community providers in Queensland is relatively
undeveloped. A project has been established to more clearly identify the
number of community providers and the extent of their involvement in delivering
ACE-VET student contact hours. [10]
The Parker Report identified a number of other providers of non formal
education and training including Skillshares, Occupational Health and
Safety providers including the Red Cross and St John's, fitness industry
trainers, school based P&F (Parents & Friends Association) programs,
craft trainers and Neighbourhood Centres. The report cited advice from
the Community Services and Health ITC suggesting that the `ratio of formal
to non-formal training is in the order of 1:10 in Queensland'. [11]
Another estimate is that non-TAFE provision could account for as much
as 5 million SCHs. [12]
`No VET funds have as yet gone into the ACE sector in Queensland'. [13]
Community based providers are so far involved in only a small way in the
delivery of VET, although they are able to provide it `if they comply
with the requirements to become registered providers of VET'. [14]
In evidence before the Committee, a representative of the Department described
the delivery of VET by community providers as being `demonstrated through
recognised and registered training conducted by community organisations
such as the Youth Sector Training Council, the Volunteer Centre of Queensland,
Second Chance, and non-government community literacy programs'. [15]
The Committee is advised that there are only three registered VET trainers
in the community sector in Queensland.
The potential for ACE to be more involved in the delivery of VET is recognised
by the Department and other agencies, as reflected in the following measures:
- The Queensland small business strategy approved in cabinet in December
1996 identified the potential of ACE to deliver training for the small
business sector. [16]
- A feasibility study currently taking place is exploring the potential
for TAFE ACE to offer short credentialled VET courses. [17]
- The Queensland State Training Profile 1996 indicates that, with development,
ACE has the potential to contribute substantially to VET in Queensland.
[18]
- In 1997, funds equivalent in dollar value to 100,000 student contact
hours have been allocated for the development of VET provision by community
based training providers. `This is to be either as delivery of training
or as activity to increase the number of community training providers
able to offer accredited VET in the near future'. [19]
This figure should probably be viewed in the context of the equivalent
dollar value of 5.805 million student contact hours available under
Competitive Funding Market. [20]
In 1996 a report was prepared by Dr Helen Parker for the Division of
VETE within DTIR on The Relationship between ACE and publicly
funded vocational education and training in Queensland. The report
determined that for DTIR purposes, `ACE sector providers are a self identifying
sub-set of registered providers'. It also determined that the DTIR requires
action and policy for an appropriate Government framework for the ACE
sector and for DTIR's approach to ACE agency arrangements and support,
and in relation to `positive discrimination action (if any) to be taken
by DTIR in terms of the ACE sector in Queensland. The report notes that
within the context of a range of opinion on these issues, two clear principles
emerged; namely that `DTIR's relationship with the ACE sector should be
strictly scoped by DTIR's VET charter' and that bureaucratic processes
should not constrain ACE sector activities. [21]
ACE has the potential to access VET funds either by inclusion in the
State Training Profile or through the competitive tendering process. At
present it is not well represented in the State Training Profile. The
report argues that ACE needs to lobby the ITABS in order to achieve a
higher portion of the profile effort. The second avenue for funding, the
Competitive Training Market, is open to all providers. However, in accessing
these funds, community based ACE providers face conditions which favour
providers with considerable infrastructure. These relate to the early
stage of development of the Competitive Training Market in Queensland
and `the need for Competitive Training Market suppliers to offer accredited
courses under NFROT arrangements'. [22]
The report notes that at present 75 per cent of competitive funding goes
to TAFE and that this proportion is increasing.
Footnotes
[1] NSW Board of ACE. ACE-VET: is it delivering?
p 27
[2] Dr Helen Parker. The Relationship between
ACE and Publicly Funded Vocational Education and Training in Queensland,
May 1996, p 11
[3] Transcript of evidence, Brisbane,
p 337 (Ms Baker)
[4] NSW Board of ACE. ACE-VET: is it delivering?
p 27
[5] NSW Board of ACE. ACE-VET: is it delivering?
p 27
[6] Transcript of evidence, Brisbane,
p 335 (Ms Baker)
[7] Transcript of evidence, Brisbane,
pp 340-341 (Ms Baker)
[8] Transcript of evidence, Brisbane,
p 343 (Ms Baker)
[9] Transcript of evidence, Brisbane,
p 342 (Ms Baker)
[10] Transcript of evidence, Brisbane,
p 335 (Ms Baker)
[11] Dr Helen Parker. The Relationship between
ACE and Publicly Funded Vocational Education and Training in Queensland,
May 1996, p 8
[12] NSW Board of ACE. ACE-VET: is it delivering?
p 27
[13] Transcript of evidence, Brisbane,
p 338 (Ms Baker)
[14] Submission no 43, vol 3, p 170 (DTIR)
[15] Transcript of evidence, Brisbane,
p 335 (Ms Baker)
[16] Transcript of evidence, Brisbane,
p 336-336 (Ms Baker)
[17] Transcript of evidence, Brisbane,
p 336 (Ms Baker)
[18] NSW Board of ACE. ACE-VET: is it delivering?
p 27
[19] Transcript of evidence, Brisbane,
p 337 (Ms Baker)
[20] Transcript of evidence, Brisbane,
p 337 (Ms Baker)
[21] Parker. The Relationship between ACE
and ..., pp 2-3
[22] Parker. The Relationship between ACE
and ..., p 17