Total VET Activity and what it means for

Total VET Activity and what it means for future planning ‘A first national collection’ ‘A view to the future’ Dr Craig Fowler Managing Director ACPET 2015 National Conference 27 August 2015 VA T

What is Total VET Activity? The first attempt to collect data on all training activity in Australia’s VET system. Previous data collections were restricted to governmentfunded training activity.

What does TVA cover? Government-funded and fee-for-service accredited* VET delivered by: • TAFE institutes and other government providers • Multi-sector higher education institutions • Community education providers • Enterprise providers • Private registered training providers • Schools and other providers delivering VET in Schools programs • Australian VET institutions delivering VET at overseas campuses * But not all activity eg recreation, leisure and personal enrichment, credit transfer

Why TVA? – RTO obligation • AVETMISS data reporting to meet Clause 7. 5 in the Standards for RTOs: “The RTO provides accurate and current information on its performance and governance consistent with the Data Provision Requirements (2012). . ” Training Students Outcomes AVETMISS

Pre-TVA reporting scope for private RTOs • Only government-funded activity for private RTOs was reported prior to the introduction of TVA. Overseas delivery Government funded Domestic fee-forservice International fee-forservice

TVA reporting scope for private RTOs • Under TVA, all training activity is reported Overseas delivery Government funded

What is the TVA reporting scope across system? Delivery at overseas campus Government funding Other register providers International Fee-forservice Delivery at overseas campus Domestic Fee-forservice International Fee-forservice Domestic Fee-forservice Government funding Delivery at overseas campus Community education providers Government funding Total VET Activity only Government-funded and Total VET Activity International Fee-forservice Government funding Domestic Fee-forservice TAFEs International Fee-forservice Domestic Fee-forservice Other government providers

What happened in 1 st ‘transition’ year? • 2014 first year that RTOs were mandated to report their training activity in early 2015 • ~500 RTOs were granted an exemption from submitting 2014 data TAFE • Not all RTOs were ready to submit • Some RTOs were confused about what to submit due to different reporting arrangements: • By funding source • By state Enterprise RTO

Data collection overview PROCESS RTO Portal STA n=8 Public VET STA n=1 data STA n=1 NCVER C’wlth Fee-for-service VET data INFRASTRUCTURE Data Standards (AVETMISS) AVETMISS validation software Data warehouse solution NCVER Portal 9

NCVER’s role in supporting TVA • Manage the VET data Standard (AVETMISS) • Communicate reporting requirements • Collection coordinator • Client support • phone and email • Ancillary support materials (FAQs, webinars, fact sheets, user guides, Data support bulletin) • AVETMISS compliant software register • AVETMISS validation software • Data Entry Tool • Data warehouse

Help desk • From January 2015, NCVER has responded to over 9, 000 requests for assistance 5, 800 telephone calls 3, 600 email enquiries

HELPDESK STATS - top categories • AVETMISS Validation Software: – – 3, 881 registered users 5, 679 queries handled 5 Jan to 30 June 2015 o validation errors, registration/ user roles • AVETMISS: – 2, 078 queries handled 5 Jan to 30 June 2015 o Reporting requirements, deadlines o Reporting process • AVETMISS Data Entry Tool: – – 667 registered users 500 queries handled 5 Jan to 30 Jun 2015 o Process, how to fix validation errors in DET

Timeliness – ‘longer than planned’ It took six months to collect 2014 TVA data • Submission window opened on 2 January 2015 • The due date for submissions was: – – 28 February 2015 for direct data submissions 31 March 2015 for STAs • Window closed on 19 May 2015 • Window reopened at ASQA’s request on 18 June 2015 • Collection finally closed on 25 June 2015

What training providers reported data?

How complete is ‘total’ VET activity? • Did RTOs submit all their training? – – – Some RTOs may have only submitted their governmentfunded data or VET in Schools data Needs future review and ASQA/NCVER audit It is known that some TAFEs have not reported their overseas training activity • Is there duplication? – – NCVER took the last submission from each data submitter NCVER ran a de-duplication process within STA submissions and between direct RTO and VET in Schools submissions • Data quality – ‘validation’ at submission not perfect

Planning – ‘A view to the future’ • ‘Old View Point’ – ‘Students and Courses’ – – Meeting largely ‘state and territory needs’ Driven by largely a ‘public-fund-source’ paradigm Emerging consumer use eg My Skills Accountability and performance measures for funding • ‘New Hill Top’ – ‘TVA’ (and in 2016 linked with USI) – – – – Details national VET effort and markets/products Performance analysis supports ‘risk-based’ regulation USI-linked transcript service Wider/deeper information for consumers eg My Skills Sampling frame for national student surveys/census Better informed planning and funding for skills/jobs More information for and about providers and VET market New accountability and performance approaches eg linked data

• State or territory of training delivery location – – The state or territory where training physically took place. For online/remote access training, based on the physical location of the provider offering training. • State or territory of student residence – – – The state or territory where student usually resides International fee-for-service students coded to ‘overseas’ Bear in mind, significant proportions may travel interstate for training, e. g. between NSW and the ACT • State or territory of the RTO – – – The state or territory where the head office of the training provider is located. Primarily used to report program completions (together with state of student residence) as state/territory of delivery is not available for completions data. Bear in mind, increasingly large cross-jurisdictional RTOs

TVA and USI into the future • Good quality data for a VET transcript service

More informed RTOs www. ncver. edu. au

But courage to get to the ‘future’ … • Resolving ‘transparency vs privacy/commerciality’ – ‘identified vs ‘de-identified, confidentialised, aggregate’ – understanding and trust about access/release of data • All stakeholders experience net benefits not burden – frequency of submission and routing of data – simple-for-user yet sophisticated national VET information management systems – data standards/updates are agile, improve quality – prompt, on-line and informative reports and analyses

Stay connected Subscribe at www. ncver. edu. au Dr Craig Fowler Managing Director craig. fowler@ncver. edu. au Follow twitter. com/ncver or @ncver linkedin. com/company/ncver