Transcendant Tertiary: VET-FEE-HELP Reforms

I promised I'd cover this in my last Board of the News post and here it is: the VET-FEE-HELP Reforms.

Basically, in light of the scams that have been plaguing the education system ever since the introduction of VET-FEE-HELP (which I covered previously), the Australian Government introduced a bunch of reforms to target VET-FEE-HELP (which will now be known as VFH for this blog) providers and in theory, crack down on these scams. Given that these are still occurring, I'd say that it's only really good if they're actually enforced.

Anyway, this is basically a summary of the reforms culled from this factsheet: VFH Factsheet. I've summed them up briefly and will also add what this should look like as "best practice." Keep in mind that "Best Practice" here is more referring to what an institution would be doing at MOST. At the very least, as long as they are complying with the laws, what they do will differ. Also keep in mind that the only courses that are currently eligible for VFH are Diploma or higher and are nationally recognised qualifications (even if the institution itself is not permitted to teach those courses nationally). Some institutions are running trials of Cert IV courses on VFH, but they are kept under very close scrutiny by the government. And with that, onto the reforms!


1. Banning "inducements"
Since April 2015, it has been made illegal for institutions to offer any sort of inducement to students to sign up to a VFH funded course. Institutions are also not allowed to provide the form used to sign up for VFH to students who have been offered inducements. The inducements may be free iPads or laptops (even as loans), cash, meals, vouchers or similar.

Best practice: This is fairly self-explanatory. Best practice would be that institutions are not offering any sort of major inducements to students, or are offering little freebies (such as pens, notepads, balloons etc) to anyone who walks past without getting them to sign up for the course.

2. Tightening VET Marketing and Recruiting Practices. 
From July, institutions are not to make any sort of suggestion that the course is free or government-funded (unless the course is genuinely fee-free). Students must be given full information about what VFH is and that yes, it is a loan that must be repaid. Institutions will also be more regularly audited, including through random telephone surveys of students, to ensure that this is being met.

Best practice: Institutions ideally would also not be inferring that courses are funded through their state government, as this a) does not apply to all courses and b) generally only means a partial funding at best (for example, a course at full-fee might be $5000, the same course government-funded would be $2000). An example of this would be a stand at the shopping centre stating "Now funded by the NSW Government, ask about Smart & Skilled today!"

To cover the information regarding VFH, ideally, an institution would provide the VFH booklet to students upon acceptance of an offer (a good institution will have a break between acceptance and the actual course start date, or an orientation week before the actual commencement of classes) or would refer students onto the studyassist website.

3. Better information about VFH and your rights.
From May 2015, students will be provided with clear information on the VFH form (Request for Commonwealth Assistance) about VFH and the obligations of said loan, and the StudyAssist website will also be updated to reflect this, including who they can talk to if they suspect something's up. The form will also include the expected debt amount.

Best practice: This is self-explanatory. Best practice would also be reading out the form to students as they are going through it, particularly if they are enrolling students in groups. Ideally, the institution would have also provided information on the fees well before the student has signed up for their course. (They have long been required to provide the full cost of the course upfront to students well before they enrol.)

4. Streamlining the refund/waiver process for students under VFH.
The fact sheet labels this one weirdly, but in plain English, it translates to that if you feel you have been entered into a debt inappropriately (i.e. the scams I've mentioned previously), it will be easier to get said debt waived. The current ruling is that students need to apply to the provider directly under certain circumstances (which for obvious reasons is not really the most ethical practice) or as a last resort, seek a waiver from the Department of Finance. This will have plans to be introduced from January 2016 provided it will actually be passed through parliament.

Best practice: Institutions would also provide information to students on how they can actually go ahead with this process, provided that the student has had a chance to speak with the head of studies first. From experience, some students withdraw if they feel that their issues have not been addressed to satisfaction, but if the institution is NOT aware of these issues, how can they address them?
While this does not address scamming institutions, for places where learning is delivered face-to-face, this is a slightly more ethical option that provides a chance for institutions to improve on their best practice as well as allowing the student to actually get their debt refunded.

5a. Strengthening the criteria for passing audits or registering. 
This one does not affect students directly, but more indirectly. Basically if someone wants to open up a brand new RTO, they need to show that they are capable of being financially viable without relying on VFH (I'll cover a bit about this process down below). Continuing institutions will also need to show this and will be subject to a more thorough assessment to ensure they are complying with the standards. This came into effect from July 2015.

Best practice: This does not affect students directly, but if they are not providing information about upfront payment methods to students, you may want to rethink if this institution is legitimate.

5b. Formalising duty of care.
The reason why I've split point 5 up in half is that half of it relates to new providers and the rest relates towards treatment of students. In this instance, institutions will be more formally subject to duty of care guidelines and treating students equally. This will come into effect as of January 2016.

Best practice: The best practice for institutions is providing this in their handbook or as an extra statement, including how this might actually look. If the RTO is running programs for high school students (i.e. a TVET provider), this would already be part of their standard practice. For other institutions, providing something along the lines of Access and Equity, a bit about discrimination law, harassment, safety and so on would be needed.

6a. Separating student payments into term periods.
This is another one I'm splitting in half as some of it relates to finance, the rest relates to student outcomes. Basically, institutions are no longer able to charge VFH students (and in practice, upfront students) the cost of the whole course in one hit. Rather, the cost would then instead need to spread out over set study periods (for a Diploma course, this would be 2-4 periods at most, for Advanced Diploma, double that) and students must be given census dates for each unit-sort of like a university. These census dates are also tied in with the payments to providers. (So this will crack down on the "start the course anytime throughout the year" problem that some distance-only providers run on*) This will also tie in with another reform which I'll explain in a minute. This came into effect from July 2015.

Best practice: Institutions would provide these to students upon enrolment, covering the entire period of the course. Census dates would also be placed on each enrolment form, on each CAN the student receives (basically informing you on what units you've been enrolled in and what you've been charged) and students would be reminded via email and text about the census date.

*-If you do find an institution that does this, check to see if their subsidaries offer face-to-face training. OTEN is a clear example of this-they have a separate website (and programs) but are owned and run by the Western Sydney TAFE (that is, that a distance student from Blacktown and a distance student from Ashfield would not be going through the same campus for study)

6b. Student outcomes are to be provided to the government.
This reform is probably one of the better reforms really and I do hope it passes. Basically, institutions will now be required to provide evidence of student progress, when they attain their diploma and their eventual employment outcome (part of this has been implemented via the USI system) to the government. Institutions will also be required to run to a framework that looks at student satisfaction and continual improvement in their course, as well as meeting outcomes. This should come into effect from January 2016.

Best practice: This one is fairly self-explanatory. If the student is receiving additional support because of their learning needs, or has had adjustments made to accommodate their study (for example, a student with a hearing impairment would have a transcript of a video provided to them instead of being forced to rely on lipreading), that would be a start. Part of this (student outcomes and date course was completed) has already been implemented through the use of USI's (I'll cover this later, but if you've ever done a first aid course in Australia since the start of this year, you'll have one of these!) but institutions would also be providing more chances for students to have a say in their satisfaction.

7. Establishing minimum requirements before a place is offered and before a VFH loan is offered. 
This is a fairly straightforward reform. From January 2016, institutions will now be required to set up an Entry Requirements Procedure for actually enrolling in a Diploma course or higher and also before offering a VFH loan. These requirements would also include minimum literacy and numeracy requirements (in English) AND either that they would have completed Year 12 or that they've had enough experience in the field to meet the requirements*. The institution would also be required to track these and prove to the auditors that the assessment has taken place.

*-An example of this might be for carpentry. If a student left high school in Year 11 and completed an apprenticeship as a carpenter, then wanted to enrol in a Diploma of Building and Construction, they would need to demonstrate that they can meet the requirements for enrolment through their on-the-job experience i.e. they know how to calculate the perimeter, area and volume of a room and how much wood they need, the cost of building a house, how to read a quote, how to read a MSDS sheet and so on.

Best Practice: Expect them to request a copy of your Year 12 certificate (your actual certificate from the board of studies in your state, not the one your high school presents) upon enrolment, or to attach repeated supplementary documentation proving that yes you are capable. If it's a combination of on-and-off job training, someone should independently assess your skills on the job through a series of questions or a simulated environment.

8. More information about outcomes from your course.
This is another one that will really only affect students who can't pick an institution, it does not affect students directly (except at the end). Students will be surveyed after graduating on their course outcomes and their employers will also be surveyed for the same reasons. These results will then be published alongside each institution on the MySkills website and serve as a government-run way of allowing students to check credentials.

Best practice: Institutions would ideally provide a link to their MySkills page somewhere on their course website.

Hopefully, this will help you to deconstruct what the reforms are, how they work and also cutting through the government spin that has been placed on the factsheet.