Getting Enrolment Right: A Six-Element Model for Inclusive Pre-Enrolment and Onboarding

An analysis of the DEWR six-element model for inclusive enrolment in vocational education and training: how reframing enrolment as a multi-step, multi-touchpoint journey rather than a single administrative event determines whether students with disability ever begin training, what good practice looks like at each stage, where it commonly fails, and what it means for RTOs aligning their enrolment processes with the Standards for RTOs 2025 and disability discrimination law.

Enrolment Is a Journey, Not a Form

Enrolment is not a form. It is a journey. And for students with disability, it is often the journey that determines whether they ever begin training at all. A complex application process, an inaccessible website, a single unhelpful phone call, or a form that asks for a medical diagnosis instead of a support need can be enough to turn a motivated prospective student away before they ever set foot in a classroom.

The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations has addressed this challenge directly through its Guidelines for Inclusive Enrolment Practices in Vocational Education and Training, released as part of the Supporting Students with Disability in VET project. At the centre of these guidelines is a six-element enrolment model that reframes enrolment as a multi-step, multi-touchpoint process rather than a single administrative event. Each element is supported by a dedicated Practice Guidance Note, complete with practical recommendations and case studies drawn from real VET scenarios. This article takes a deep dive into each of the six elements, exploring what good practice looks like at every stage and illustrating where things commonly go wrong.

1. The Six-Element Model: An Overview

The DEWR guidelines identify six distinct but interlocking elements that together constitute a successful, inclusive and accessible enrolment: pre-enrolment course information, pre-enrolment first contact, pre-enrolment application documents, enrolment processes, onboarding to the RTO, and orientation to teaching and learning. The guidelines emphasise that these elements may not occur in strict sequence and may be handled by different teams, or by a single person in a small RTO, but all must be completed for enrolment to be genuinely inclusive.

Three overarching principles underpin the entire model: a success orientation that designs every step to help the student succeed rather than screen them out, the anticipation of needs through proactive planning that accommodates diversity from the start, and a commitment to responding to individual needs when universal design is not sufficient. The model also articulates a set of cross-cutting principles, including a focus on detail, an emphasis on completion, innovation and flexibility, attention to students with multiple needs, allowing discussion and requests at any point, monitoring how information is shared, keeping the student at the heart of support discussions, and building whole-staff disability awareness and confidence.

The model aligns directly with ASQA's expectations under the Standards for RTOs 2025. Within Quality Area 2, VET Student Support, the information provided to students is addressed by Outcome Standards 2.1 and 2.2, training support by Outcome Standards 2.3 and 2.4, and a safe and inclusive learning environment by Outcome Standard 2.5. The ASQA Practice Guides for diversity and inclusion and for training support expect providers to demonstrate that enrolment policies, information, training environments, assessment and support services are accessible, inclusive and responsive to individual needs. The following table summarises the six elements, the inclusive practice each requires, and the failure the DEWR case studies illustrate.

2. The Six Elements in Detail

2.1 Course Information: Put Yourself in the Student's Shoes

The first Practice Guidance Note focuses on how RTOs provide information about their courses before a student has made any formal enquiry. Supporting students with disability starts with the very first engagement of interest, and the core principle is that prospective students do not know what they do not know. RTOs must take the stance of the prospective student when developing course information.

Good practice means ensuring course information is easy to find, available in multiple formats, written in plain language, and honest about entry requirements, workload, delivery modes, supports available and realistic outcomes. Course information should explicitly invite students to disclose support needs and explain how to do so, rather than assuming only people who already know their rights will ask. Any inherent requirements, the non-negotiable physical or cognitive demands of a course, should be stated clearly so students can make genuinely informed decisions.

The DEWR guidelines illustrate what happens when this fails. In one case, Cal was researching a Diploma of Graphic Design but could find no information about class patterns or whether rest breaks were possible. Cal manages a condition requiring regular rest and cannot work every day of the week. The RTO could have published indicative class patterns, information about rest facilities and details about part-time availability. In another, Caden was considering a Certificate III in Community Services but found that his particular support need was not listed among the disabilities the RTO's website said it supported. He decided not to declare his disability and assumed there was no help available. The RTO could have ensured its disability listings were not presented as exhaustive, moved toward support-needs language, and provided a means of confidential enquiry.

2.2 First Contact: First Impressions Count

The second element addresses the moment a prospective student first interacts with the RTO, whether by phone, email, walk-in, online chat or through a third-party agent. For many learners with disability, this single interaction determines whether they perceive the RTO as safe, respectful and responsive, or whether they quietly move on.

Inclusive first-contact practices require staff who understand disability and inclusion, or who can quickly connect callers to someone who does. RTOs should offer multiple communication options and be willing to use interpreters or third-party supports where appropriate. The conversation should focus on support needs and aspirations rather than medical diagnoses. The guidance is particularly firm on gatekeeping: RTOs must not discourage enquiries from students perceived as too complex. Instead, staff should explain what supports are available and what is realistic.

The case of Faizah illustrates the consequences. Faizah attended an open day and asked whether her service dog could attend her Certificate IV in Business Administration classes. A staff member, knowing only the no-dogs-on-site policy, told her it was not possible, and did not refer her to anyone who could clarify or explore an exception. The RTO should have prepared staff to recognise that not every question can be answered on the spot, ensured staff knew to escalate or refer queries they were not equipped to handle, and made clear that service animals are a legal right under disability discrimination law.

2.3 Application Documents: Information Flows Are Critical

The third element addresses the point at which a prospective student first enters their details into the RTO's administrative system, whether through an electronic form, a paper application, a third-party submission or an application for recognition of prior learning. Robust information collection, storage and sharing systems are essential, and they do not need to be expensive. A simple, secure record-keeping system can be effective, provided it captures, records and shares the right data from the start.

Application documents commonly create barriers through complex forms, inaccessible formats or intrusive questions about disability and health. The DEWR guidelines recommend simplifying forms and using plain language, making them available in accessible electronic and paper formats, asking about support needs rather than medical conditions, and clearly explaining why particular information is requested and how it will be used and protected. The language should be success-oriented: a question such as what could we do to support your learning is far more effective than checkboxes asking students to categorise themselves by diagnosis.

The case of Ellie demonstrates the risk. Ellie was completing an online enrolment form for a Certificate II in Fitness and was able to declare an acquired brain injury, but the form did not capture her related visual impairment, which she considered her primary disability. No one followed up, and her trainer was later surprised by her difficulties in class. The RTO could have asked how conditions affect learning rather than relying on a fixed list of categories, and built in a follow-up process for students who disclose a support need.

2.4 Enrolment Processes: More Than One Way to Process Enrolments

The fourth element focuses on the formal enrolment steps: eligibility checks, funding forms, Unique Student Identifier registration, identity verification, LLND screening and fee disclosures. These processes are necessary but can be overwhelming and time-pressured, particularly for students with disability, language barriers or complex circumstances.

Inclusive practice includes allowing extra time for enrolment appointments, offering support to complete forms with clear consent and privacy safeguards, ensuring physical spaces are accessible and online systems work with assistive technologies, and checking understanding at each step rather than assuming that nodding equals comprehension. The guidance is firm on LLND screening: best practice uses these screenings as diagnostic tools for support, not as hurdles for entry. Results should be linked to tailored support or foundation skills training, not used solely as a gatekeeping mechanism. This element connects directly to the training support obligations under Outcome Standards 2.3 and 2.4, which expect RTOs to demonstrate how support services, including LLND support, assistive technology, tutorials and individual support, are made available on enrolment and as students progress.

2.5 Onboarding to the RTO: Ensuring the Student's Success

The fifth element covers the critical period between formal enrolment and the commencement of active training, the step between planned study and active engagement. It is an ideal time to support disclosure of learning needs and disability, because students are transitioning from decision-making to commitment, and the quality of onboarding can determine whether that commitment is sustained.

Inclusive onboarding includes giving students clear information on how to contact trainers, support staff, disability services and IT help, including preferred channels and response times. RTOs should demonstrate how to use learning management systems and online portals in accessible sessions rather than assuming digital familiarity. Where a student has disclosed a disability or additional need, the onboarding period is the time to proactively connect them with relevant supports and, where appropriate, co-design reasonable adjustments before classes begin. The guidance places particular emphasis on information sharing: only staff who need to know should have access to a student's disability information, and the student should be central in deciding what is shared and with whom. This monitored, student-centred approach protects privacy while ensuring the trainers and assessors who need to know about adjustments are properly informed. If onboarding fails to translate inclusive policies into day-to-day reality, even the most accessible course design will not be enough.

2.6 Orientation to Teaching and Learning: A Two-Way Communication

The sixth element addresses the introduction of students to teaching approaches, assessment methods, classroom norms and support expectations. Crucially, orientation is not a one-off event. Each time a student has a new trainer and assessor, they go through an orientation to the new training and assessment environment. For courses with multiple units, different trainers or varied settings such as classrooms, practical workshops, laboratories and work placements, there may need to be several orientation discussions.

Inclusive orientation means explaining how learning will happen, including the mix of lectures, workshops, online modules and work placements, and what kinds of participation are expected. It means demystifying assessment by walking students through the types of tasks, timelines, reasonable adjustment processes and academic integrity expectations, including how assistive technology can be used appropriately. And it means allowing space for students to ask questions about workload, supports and any adjustments needed, with trainers ready to respond constructively. This element closes the loop. A student who has experienced inclusive course information, a supportive first contact, accessible application documents, a well-managed enrolment process and thoughtful onboarding still needs an inclusive classroom culture and assessment landscape to succeed. Orientation is where the promises made during enrolment are either honoured or broken.

3. Cross-Cutting Themes: What Holds the Model Together

Several themes run through all six elements and give the model its coherence. The first is whole-of-RTO responsibility. In many organisations, the six elements are handled by different teams: marketing, student services, administration, training delivery and student support. Mapping the elements against existing roles and processes clarifies who does what and reveals where gaps exist. The model is a diagnostic tool as much as a design framework.

The second is student-centred support. The principles of keeping the student at the heart of support discussions and allowing discussion and requests at any point push RTOs away from treating disclosure as a one-off event at enrolment and toward an ongoing dialogue that adapts as the student's needs and circumstances change. The third is monitoring and improvement. The guidelines encourage RTOs to track issues that arise at each element, monitor how information about disability is shared and used, and feed that data back into the refinement of policies and processes. Inclusive enrolment is not designed once and left alone. It is a living system that must be reviewed, tested and improved continuously.

Finally, the model reinforces the alignment between internal processes and regulatory expectations. Every element maps to obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, the Disability Standards for Education 2005, and the Standards for RTOs 2025, particularly the student-information requirements of Outcome Standards 2.1 and 2.2, the training-support requirements of Outcome Standards 2.3 and 2.4, and the safe and inclusive learning environment required by Outcome Standard 2.5. For RTOs preparing for regulatory audits or self-assurance reviews, documenting how each of the six elements has been addressed provides a clear and defensible evidence trail.

Conclusion: The Framework Is Clear, and the Students Are Waiting

Getting enrolment right is the first and most powerful retention and equity strategy an RTO has. For students with disability, the enrolment experience is often a litmus test for the entire organisation, and the cost of getting it wrong is measured in motivated learners who never begin.

The DEWR six-element model provides a clear, practical and evidence-informed framework for redesigning enrolment from the ground up. It is supported by detailed Practice Guidance Notes for each element, case studies that illustrate both failure and good practice, and direct alignment with the Standards for RTOs 2025 and the expectations of ASQA. Every RTO, regardless of size or specialisation, should map its current enrolment processes against these six elements, identify where students with disability are being lost, and begin the work of building processes that are genuinely inclusive. The resources are freely available. The framework is clear. The students are waiting.

References and Further Reading

Department of Employment and Workplace Relations. Guidelines for Inclusive Enrolment Practices in VET, and the Supporting Students with Disability in VET project (Practice Guidance Notes 1 to 6). https://www.dewr.gov.au

Australian Skills Quality Authority. Standards for RTOs 2025, Quality Area 2: VET Student Support. https://www.asqa.gov.au/rtos/2025-standards-rtos

Australian Skills Quality Authority. Practice Guides: Diversity and Inclusion, and Training Support. https://www.asqa.gov.au/rtos/2025-standards-rtos/practice-guides

National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Outcome Standards for NVR Registered Training Organisations) Instrument 2025. Federal Register of Legislation.

Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth). Federal Register of Legislation.

Disability Standards for Education 2005 (Cth). Federal Register of Legislation.