The relevant qualification is the certificate IV in training and assessment or its replacement the certificate IV in training and education. It is required by governments, not chosen by Tafe institutes. Furthermore, the Productivity Commission argued that even that qualification isn't necessary.

No educational institution can 'guarantee' the quality of its education, just as no hospital can guarantee the quality of its care.

I signed the letter. The argument isn't that private is bad, altho there have been spectacular failures of quality and standards by private for profit vocational providers. The argument is that the Victorian Government is destroying valuable community institutions by its radical cuts to tafe funding.

The certificate in workplace training or whatever it is called in its latest iteration was never any use in quality assurance. It's principal use was to bolster funding by putting bums on seats, even where the bums belonged to staff members. Of all the things the TAFEs could be condemned for this is the least significant. The quality of a course was and is always down to the individual teacher or sometimes (rarely) department head. The problems with skills education do not lie with any of the multifold failings of the TAFE system they are endemic with our politicians who have, whatever their leanings, utterly failed to see the value of anything other than White Coat research, private secondary and University education because that is the only type of education within their life experience and the only type they value. Private providers flourish in the TAFE sector where large colleges fail because the funding and the atmosphere in general has encouraged box-ticking which can be performed automatically. How long before computer assessment is introduced in TAFE I wonder? If you want an idea of where the sector is going have a look at the language that is being used. There is not much talk of "education" but there is plenty of talk about training. To assess the implications here remember that animals are trained and humans are educated. As a final point there is a Group Training/Apprenticeship Centre in Central Victoria that calls itself the "Apprenticeship Factory". That's right, you just push the raw material in one end, process it and out comes the finished product at the other end. Are we sure that that is what education is about?

Whoops certificate not diploma, I actually have one myself, for what it's worth, but surprising that when many in TAFE and RTOs are dismissive of the qualification, the VET industry cannot lobby governments for change, like the higher education sector can (including a large prive pathway provider)?

Victoria like elsewhere had no excuse allowing the emergent dodgy colleges to register, prosper, and then close mostly due to the imposition of draconian student visa changes, meanwhile where were the "real" quality processes and state regulators from the early noughties?

You cannot guarantee quality but there can be processes which make it more likely, and also helps first to define what is quality in education and training, or teaching? It is understood that some institutions, like hospitals, airlines, hotels etc. are of (far) superior quality to to their counterparts, why?

One "quality process" would be knowing what exactly goes on at the "coalface" between master/apprentice, teacher/student, trainer/trainee for optimum learning and skills acquisition through evaluation e.g. authentic trainee and stakeholder feedback, peer or expert observation, ongoing development and training of trainers etc. as opposed to qualifications and "action research" (in other words immediate informed feedback vs a long process of practitioner reflection that may or may not identify shortfalls in practice), or as governments prefer, limiting focus to "outcomes" via tests or assessment.

TAFEs are valuable community resources, however they were developed a long time ago, endeavouring to serve the whole community, when in fact many communities e.g. regional towns miss out altogether, where high schools, community centres, workplaces and other places or forms of delivery are more relevant.

Unfortunately governments and parts of the education bureaucracy view education and training as easily managed input/output exercise. Further, when one listens to the language of education management you may hear expressions such as "connected", "the top people", etc. which suggests relationships and lobbying are more important than actual education.

While VET is sometimes seen as lower social status, there maybe too much focus upon higher education e.g. targets for higher enrolments, yet I am not aware of any specific occupational or study areas being targetted, and with increasing fees, are young peple being burdened with debts to further the interests of higher education sector (and in competition for state funds with an older generations of retirees and baby boomers)?

Another perspective on VET funding is that like any sector you do not want all your "eggs in one basket" or a monopoly, just in case someone gets it wrong, while smaller providers are much more agile in a rapidly changing environment.....