Description
The calculation of expenditures per full-year training equivalent in the Annual national report of the Australian vocational education and training system to Parliament includes the application of cost weights. These 'course mix weights' account for the variation among states and territories in the relative mix of high- and low-cost programs and promote comparability of unit costs among jurisdictions. However, changes to the Australian Vocational Education and Training Management Information Statistical Standard, primarily the change in occupation classifications from ASCO to ANZSCO, mean that the methodology applied until 2008 can no longer be used. This paper explains the technical solution to this problem, showing how course mix weights are calculated using a new method based on a set of cost relatives by the subject field of education rather than the funding industry of the course. It also provides a comparison of the two methods.
Summary
About the research
The calculation of expenditures per full-year training equivalent (FYTE) in the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relation's Annual national report of the Australian vocational education and training system to Parliament includes the application of cost weights. These 'course mix weights' account for the variation among states and territories in the relative mix of high- and low-cost programs and promote comparability of unit costs among jurisdictions. However, changes to the Australian Vocational Education and Training Management Information Statistical Standard (AVETMISS) mean that the methodology applied until 2008 can no longer be used.
The purpose of this paper is to explain the technical solution to this problem.
The paper explains how course mix weights are calculated using a new method based on a set of cost relativities by the subject field of education rather than the funding industry of the course. It also provides a comparison of the two methods.
Tom Karmel
Managing Director, NCVER