VET Teacher Training in Australia: Preserving Australian VET ...

and 66). This could be read as universities being valued as educators and VET doesn’t embrace
education. I doubt that this is the intent, but it does encourage narrowing of VET activity to the point
where a VET teacher’s identity does not support the proposition of CPD in the being‐ an‐ educator
arena. If this is the intention, it is not my view and does not accord with my industry experience as a
‘trainer’ where the acquisition of skills was never isolated from education inputs and outcomes.
My concern is that if VET is confirmed as narrowly focused on skills, the product of VET – trained
people ‐ will be so narrow in competency that they will not have a place in the world of work as
predicted by governments and other agencies; and this is not in accord with the rich learning
intended as VET in Australia. Further, the role of a VET teacher in drawing upon Training Packages as
their facilitation framework requires professional capacity beyond what might be thought of as a
robotic trainer (but not as I see it) going through the motions of pre‐determined training processes.
The conceiving of competency based training (CBT) in Australia as governed by endorsed
competency standards but not ruled by centrally prescribed curriculum requires a high level of
teacher confidence in constructing and delivering customised learning – i.e. capability in design and
delivery of learning at a level not required where curriculum is predetermined. In particular,
unpacking units and elements of competency so as to crystallise meaning and facilitate rich learning
demands high order teacher capability with an educationalist stance. This is especially the case as
the delivery of Training Packages requires learning design capabilities and motivations which don’t
necessarily presently reside across the spectrum of providers.
A highly ethical approach is required to meet the needs of individuals and groups within differing
cohorts of students, but bring about arrival at a target competency and hence integrity of
qualification. As it is a VET system requirement that qualifications issued by one provider be
accepted by another, the integrity and capability of the teacher/assessor is profoundly important.
A VET teacher functions at a level above what is required of an instructor but there is, in the
preparation of a new entrant, a vulnerability to think and act as though the teacher is preparing to
be an instructor or maybe just the deliverer of a message – assessing facilitation competency by a
short video of the candidate presenting on some topic is indicative of this. VET teaching is about the
VET student learning more so than the teacher teaching (Hughes 2009) and requires professional
commitment, innovation and ethic to achieve this.
With the mutuality of commitment – teacher to provider and provider to teacher ‐ in mind, I can’t
put a precise date on when it started, but my sense is that around 2000 it began to be noticeable
that TAFE Institutes 15 were moving from hiring teachers under contract to short‐term appointments.
And, being the husband of a TAFE Institute Head of Teaching Department, I am aware of the
management stress which comes with maintaining teaching staff commitment when their (teaching
staff) having a job after Christmas is not certain, but I can only imagine ‐ with empathy – the
professional debilitation felt by the teacher as they are consequently on a quest to secure the next
job should the current position not be renewed. Even though they may be confidently employed full
time for one year, it is understandable if the teacher works with commitment for the first six months
15 In line with the Australian Government Productivity Commission Report (PC 2011) upon the vocational
education and training workforce, this paper refers to the TAFE Sector as the public provider and Non‐TAFE
Sector as the private provider.
12