What works where you are? The implementation of training packages in rural Australia

• Training packages have been extensively implemented in the rural communities of Ainsworth, Baldwin, Colton, Duncan and Ellis. Providers of vocational education and training (VET) servicing these rural communities were constantly challenged by 'thin' markets—or markets characterised by low activity and thus lacking depth or volume—and the small numbers engaging in training. Funding for training provision and the range of training on offer were consequently limited.

• Some policies and regulations governing funding and the delivery of training were seen by rural providers as working against their efforts to supply innovative solutions to meet the training needs of their communities. They would welcome some flexibility in the application of policy and regulations together with differential funding formulas.
• There was evidence of extensive collaboration in the provision of training between stakeholders in rural communities. Networking and partnerships have allowed resource and information sharing, avoidance of unproductive duplication of effort, and positive outcomes for providers, learners, enterprises and the communities.

• While competition policy has engendered a healthy training market, collaboration in rural communities is a sensible strategy for delivering effective vocational education and training. Any policies and incentives that support collaboration will assist in the broadening of training possibilities in non-metropolitan Australia.
   

It has been widely reported in recent years that Australia's regional and rural communities have extensive needs for skill development (Falk & Golding 1999; Kilpatrick & Bell 1999; Centre for Research and Learning in Regional Australia 2000). Changes wrought by globalisation and national policy and regulatory imperatives are forcing social and economic transformation in non-metropolitan Australia. Vocational education and training (VET) can assist these communities to develop the necessary skills to enable them to survive and to prosper in these changed environments.

The purpose of this research was to investigate the implementation of training packages in rural areas and the ways in which providers, community and industry stakeholders interact to achieve positive training outcomes. Stakeholders include training providers (public, private, VET in Schools and adult and community education [ACE]); New Apprenticeship Centres and group training companies; enterprises and industry representatives; government agencies; community organisations and learners.

The research looked at the strategies being employed in rural communities to ensure effective delivery of vocational education and training, particularly in situations where access to training infrastructure or to a diversity of workplaces and work experiences is limited.

Information was gleaned through a review of literature and websites relating to vocational education and training in rural Australia and training package implementation, as well as through focus group interviews with key stakeholders in five rural communities. To establish a general picture of relationships between key stakeholders in the communities, a simple network-mapping process was also undertaken.

Rural communities were defined as being not metropolitan; not major regional centres; not remote; and having a population within town boundaries of less than 10 000. Those selected were rural agricultural communities in far-north Queensland, central-west New South Wales, northwest Victoria and south-east South Australia, together with a regional town in south-east New South Wales.

Each of the communities in this study was unique. Their geographical setting, their socio-economic standing and their own, individual needs set them apart. Some had high unemployment, particularly for young people, but others were more fortunate in that the young were not forced to move out of the area seeking work. Some areas offered full-time permanent work, while others had a predominately casual workforce.

The major drivers of training in the communities examined were the same as those that influence training activity in regional and metropolitan Australia. National training policy, industry skill requirements as well as state government initiatives played a paramount role in determining what and how training was delivered. Considerable influence was also brought to bear by the market, which dictates the focus, direction and form that training is to take.

At the local level, rural industries, local government, small business and community groups also played a role in determining skill needs and, as a consequence, local training needs.

Within the five rural communities included in the study, there was a huge diversity of training going on. It included a range of VET qualifications and the delivery of over 30 training packages. Other accredited training, enterprise-specific training and non-accredited short courses such as pre-employment, adult basic education, and training to support change in enterprises were also in evidence. Most training in each community was directed at supporting primary or local industry and community small business. New Apprenticeships were strong in all of the communities as were VET in Schools programs, school-based apprenticeships and adult and community education programs.

Despite the extensiveness of training package implementation, this research found that the qualifications on offer to rural learners in their own communities tended to be limited to Certificate I to Certificate IV. If learners wished to pursue training programs beyond Certificate IV, they engaged in training online or pursued their learning goals by leaving their community to access training in a larger regional centre. This could have a negative impact on both the social and business make-up of their communities.

Each of the communities examined in this research had its own particular advantages and disadvantages when it came to the implementation of training packages and other training. The literature on vocational education and training in rural and remote communities identifies a series of barriers that impact upon effective training delivery. The focus group participants in each of the rural communities included in this study confirmed many of these and elaborated on the complexities of implementing training packages and other training in their environments.

The following complicating factors were seen to be influential in training delivery in rural communities:

• Smaller numbers in training meant that, generally, the finances, resources and infrastructure for supporting such delivery were correspondingly limited.
• Isolation created particular problems in terms of accessing training and finding the qualified teaching staff to provide training. Lack of public transport was a major factor in lack of access.

• The impact of outside training providers was controversial. While their value was acknowledged for the expertise and facilities that they could bring to the community, they were not seen to have the community’s best interests at heart, due to their lack of one-on-one interaction and failure to generally follow-up.

• 'Thin' markets—or markets characterised by low activity and thus lacking depth or volume—meant a lack of diversity in training programs able to be offered, with funding being the main barrier to the provision of a broader range of programs.

• Access to relevant workplaces was problematic, not only from the viewpoint of finding places, but also because of the problem of public liability and the high and increasing cost of insurance.

• Coordination, promotion and marketing of training packages across all businesses and education and training sectors within rural communities is not sufficiently effective.

Informants described the strategies they were putting in place to ensure that they were meeting the needs of their clients and their communities. They acknowledged a need to be highly flexible in the way they deliver training, so as not to further disadvantage particular rural learners. Thus, much of their training was being tailored and targeted to meet the needs of specific groups. Further, many of the training providers working in these communities had made a commitment to providing support services for those learners most in need. The provision of training that was timely, relevant and cost effective was a concern for respondents across the five communities.

A number of providers found ways of addressing the particular challenges that their learners face, chief among which is their geographic isolation. They did this by offering training in flexible modes, by attempting to solve transport difficulties, and by taking training to where the learners were located.

However, a frustration commonly expressed by training providers, industry and community representatives and employers related to the bureaucratic rules and regulations, which they felt often prevented them from being as flexible as they considered they needed to be to better serve their clients. Some participants commented that these rules and regulations impacted more forcibly on rural training providers and employers than on their city counterparts, simply because of the tyranny of distance and the inherent costs associated with their geographic isolation.

A number of participants in the study emphasised that, although there may be a perception that rural communities are scattered and not cohesive they, in fact, see themselves as 'close'. This strong sense of cohesion indicated that the members of these communities can be supportive and responsive to each other. By its very nature, vocational education and training in rural communities holds considerable potential for cooperation, collaboration and the sharing of resources, ideas and learners.

Whilst some training providers in this study expressed concerns about competition and the protection of their competitive edge, there was extensive evidence of strong networks, formal and informal partnerships and resource sharing within these communities. Despite the challenges of the current training market, key stakeholders in rural communities were becoming more trusting and willing to enter into collaborative activities in the interests of their learners and their communities. Gradually, public and private training providers were recognising that they needed to make pragmatic decisions about market share. They have come to the understanding that it makes little sense for all providers to be delivering similar training programs in the same location. It also made no sense for those with limited capabilities in specialised training areas to compete with those who have expertise. Instead, they are choosing to work together.

An outcome of this collaborative activity is that stakeholders in training had a strong sense that they can influence decisions about what training should occur in their rural community. Evidence from previous research highlights the importance of local ownership and local input, a factor verified by the participants involved in this study.

Cooperative efforts between stakeholders can pay great dividends for rural communities and, as such, much more consideration may need to be given to policies, incentives and other strategies that will encourage and extend such collaborative activities.