As regulatory expectations rise, the sector confronts a growing question: has vocational training drifted too far from its purpose?
Australia’s Vocational Education and Training system was built on a simple, powerful premise: practical skills first, academic theory second. It was designed for people who learn by doing, not by writing essays. It was intended as a system that valued capability over formality, hands-on mastery over academic prose.
Yet over the past decade — and especially under escalating regulatory reforms — the system has drifted. Today, carpenters are expected to produce university-style portfolios. Electricians must write essays demonstrating “critical reflective practice”. A chef preparing for a commercial kitchen role may be required to complete extended written assessments that bear little resemblance to industry expectations.
The question emerging across the sector is stark: Is the current VET system still fair?
Or has it quietly shifted into an academically biased model that no longer reflects the needs, abilities, or learning styles of Australia’s tradespeople?
The System That Lost Its Way: How Regulation Turned Practical Skills Into Academic Burdens
The increasing academicisation of VET did not happen overnight. It is the byproduct of regulatory pressure, audit anxiety, and compliance-driven design decisions. As audit expectations intensified, RTOs began building larger, more complex assessment tools—not because industry demanded them, but because regulators increasingly favoured documentary evidence over practical demonstration.
Three systemic forces pushed the sector in this direction:
1. Evidence inflation
Regulators now expect extensive “mapping”, “validation”, and “documented justification” for every task. In response, assessments ballooned. Learners once required to demonstrate competence through observation and practical tasks are now completing multi-page written assignments to “prove” what the assessor can already see in the workshop.
2. Fear-driven overcompensation
Following high-profile compliance failures, many providers adopted conservative, documentation-heavy models to avoid sanctions. The result? Assessment tools are designed not for learning, but for audit defence.
3. A mismatch between regulatory interpretation and vocational purpose
While the industry emphasises hands-on skill, regulators prioritise written proof. This mismatch creates a system where a learner who excels practically may fail academically, even though the job requires no academic writing.
The consequence is a VET system that increasingly looks like a hybrid between vocational training and academic education — without the supports, flexibilities, or literacy scaffolds provided in higher education.
Tradies Are Not Failed Academics — They Are Experts in Applied Skill
Australia’s trades workforce is one of the nation’s greatest economic assets. Carpenters, plumbers, diesel fitters, welders, boiler operators, refrigeration mechanics, electricians, and builders form the backbone of the national infrastructure.
Yet many of these learners did not thrive in mainstream schooling. Not because they lacked intelligence, but because traditional academic learning styles did not match their strengths. VET was their pathway — a system designed for their learning style, their motivation, and their career trajectory.
Today, however, many RTOs report shocking stories:
• apprentices spending more time writing than working in the workshop
• learners failing qualifications due to literacy demands unrelated to industry tasks
• employers complaining that apprentices “don’t understand why they’re writing essays instead of learning the trade”
• trainers spending hours explaining paperwork that will never be used outside assessments
When a bricklaying apprentice must produce a 12-page reflective journal on sustainability principles, one must ask: Is this genuinely required for competence? Or is it a compliance artefact demanded to satisfy regulatory risk aversion?
What Industry Says: Skills Matter — Paperwork Does Not
Industry consultation across multiple sectors shows overwhelming consensus:
Employers want:
• safe workers
• skilled workers
• reliable workers
• workers who can problem-solve in real time
• workers who can collaborate and communicate effectively
Employers do not want:
• academic theorists
• essay writers
• portfolio builders
• assessment technologists
One construction supervisor interviewed for a state workforce study summarised the issue succinctly:
“I need someone who can build a wall straight, not someone who can write an essay about building a wall straight.”
Another employer added:
“If they can show me the skill in the workshop, I don’t care how many reports they can produce.”
These statements are not anti-education; they are pro-relevance. They reflect a workforce built on applied knowledge, not academic justification.
Regulators Expect Evidence — But Evidence Has Become the Purpose
The core tension is this:
Regulators expect written evidence.
Employers expect practical skills.
Learners want hands-on training.
RTOs are stuck trying to satisfy all three — and failing someone in the process.
The Standards for RTOs call for reliable, authentic, valid, and sufficient evidence. However, the implementation of these principles has, over time, been interpreted to favour written submissions because they leave an audit trail.
In practice, this means:
-
Demonstrations are filmed, documented, and logged — then supplemented by written reports
-
Practical assessments require written underpinning knowledge sections even when oral questioning would suffice
-
RTOs include additional written tasks simply because they are easier to present in audit rooms
This shift undermines the spirit of competency-based training, where demonstration over time — not theory — defines competence.
Who Is Failing Whom? The Learner, or the System?
The rise in non-completions across trade qualifications is frequently attributed to learner disengagement, poor literacy skills, or lack of commitment.
But alternative explanations are now gaining recognition:
1. Learners disengage because the system no longer suits them
When assessments resemble university assignments rather than trade certifications, some apprentices reasonably conclude that VET no longer reflects their strengths.
2. The system underestimates the cognitive load placed on tradespeople
Managing multiple assessments, written tasks, evidence portfolios, and online submissions while working full-time is unrealistic — especially for apprentices aged 16–19 with limited academic backgrounds.
3. RTOs are constrained by compliance expectations
Trainers often express frustration that the assessments they must administer do not reflect what they want to teach.
4. Non-completion is frequently a policy problem, not a learner problem
If a plumbing apprentice is required to complete a written assignment that they do not understand, and this assignment is unrelated to their day-to-day trade, is the learner at fault? Or has the system imposed an inappropriate requirement?
When the rules of the game are misaligned with the purpose of the game, failure is a design flaw — not a learner flaw.
The Fairness Question: Has VET Become an Unfair System?
From a fairness standpoint, the answer depends on one principle:
Is the assessment model aligned with the learning needs of the cohort and the genuine requirements of the job?
Currently, across many trades, the answer is no.
Indicators of unfairness include:
1. Disproportionate literacy requirements
Assessment tasks often exceed Year 12 academic standards for learners who may only hold Year 10 or lower literacy backgrounds.
2. Unequal support structures
Universities offer libraries, writing centres, academic advisors, tutoring, but apprentices often receive one trainer with limited time.
3. Excessive documentation requirements
Learners are judged on paperwork volume, not applied skill.
4. Inconsistent regulatory interpretation
Some auditors demand extensive written evidence; others accept oral questioning or observation. This inconsistency fuels over-assessment.
5. Qualification design that ignores real workplaces
Many units require evidence that does not reflect actual trade practice, forcing trainers to invent scenarios solely to satisfy the training package.
In fairness terms, the system has drifted from its mission.
A System Built for Compliance Cannot Also Be Fair for Learners
Fairness, in vocational learning, requires:
• assessment methods suitable for practical learners
• evidence models proportionate to industry needs
• clarity and consistency from regulators
• balanced expectations between theory and practice
• administrative burden that does not overshadow teaching
• pathways that respect diverse literacy capabilities
Instead, many RTOs are devoting more resources to compliance than to student support, industry partnerships, apprenticeships, mentoring, or innovation.
A compliance-heavy model may protect regulators —
But it does not protect learners.
Rebalancing the System: What Needs to Change
To restore fairness, the sector needs structural reform.
1. Practical assessment must be the primary evidence base
Written tasks should support, not dominate, practical demonstration.
2. Regulators must clarify expectations
Clear, consistent guidelines will reduce the defensive over-assessment currently driving academic overload.
3. Literacy requirements must match industry needs
Regulation should ensure safety and communication skills, not academic fluency, which is irrelevant to the trade.
4. Training packages must be rewritten with the industry at the centre
Industry should define competence, not bureaucratic interpretation.
5. Administrative burden must be reduced
Compliance should be a safeguard, not an obstacle.
6. Apprenticeship systems need greater learner support
Mentoring, blended delivery, and structured pathways lift completion without raising academic barriers.
A System at a Turning Point
Australia’s VET system is at a critical juncture. It must confront a difficult truth:
The current regulatory environment expects trade learners to perform like academic scholars — and that expectation is neither fair nor necessary.
Fairness in VET is not achieved by increasing the volume of evidence.
It is achieved by aligning assessment with real skills, real workplaces, and real learners.
If Australia wants a strong, skilled, confident trades workforce, the system must return to its foundation:
Practical training, practical assessment, practical competence.
Until then, the fairness of the system will remain in question — and non-completion will continue to reflect policy failure rather than learner shortcomings.
