Description
NCVER commissioned six leading thinkers to offer insights into what is meant by a training market, constraints upon that market and the areas for improvement in the system which would allow consumers greater choice. These papers, along with responses and an introduction by NCVER's Managing Director, Dr Tom Karmel, contribute to the public debate about the design of a market in the vocational education and training sector.
Summary
About the research
‘Competition’ and ‘contestability’ are now part of the vocational education and training (VET) lexicon. But do we know what they mean? Do choice and competition lead to better outcomes? Does a less-than-perfect training market justify the intervention of central planners? What do students and employers need to make sensible decisions about training? What rules and institutions give the best outcomes; that is, what should the ‘market design’ look like?
These are important questions but, despite the fact that the fifth of the current five national research priorities is Enabling VET providers to compete effectively: by identifying the barriers VET providers face to operating effectively in a competitive environment, the specific issue of competition did not whet the appetite of researchers bidding for grants funded by the National VET Research and Evaluation Program. Perhaps this is because market design in VET is an area still shrouded in fog.
To assist in lifting the fog, in late 2008, NCVER commissioned six people to write essays about competition in the Australian training market. Most were from outside the VET sector. In order to ensure their ideas were tied into current concerns within VET, NCVER went on to invite six insiders to respond to the essays. The results from both groups are contained in this volume.
The participants in this exercise do not entirely agree with each other. But there is general acknowledgement that the risks associated with the state determining the supply and demand for training mean that governments cannot retreat from the training market. However, the role of the state, relative to that of individuals and employers, is contentious.
A leitmotif in this volume is the critical role of information. Irrespective of whether we believe in planning, training supply or allowing the consumers (individuals and businesses) to dictate provision, high-quality information is needed.
I hope these essays and the responses to them make a useful contribution to the debate about market design in the VET sector.
Tom Karmel
Managing Director, NCVER