Productivity Places Program
August 28, 2008 by admin
The Productivity Places Program has been under fire lately. edward beale steps up to defend the program and tell why edward beale training has joined the government initiative.
edward beale responds to Industry Alert article which appeared in HAIRBIZ Aug/Sep edition
Productivity Places Program
Threatening the hairdressing industry
By Ruth Brown
Let me say after 50 years in the hairdressing industry, the only thing threatening the future of hairdressing is the hairdressers themselves.
Firstly the government should be congratulated by taking the initiative and making funds available for training.
Ruth’s claim that PPP is aimed at job seekers is probably correct but why not? School leavers are not actually flying through the door looking for apprenticeships and as the price of a course can be as high as $20,000 for a Cert 111 it is out of reach for most, who cannot find a position as an apprentice.
Another point Ms Brown made, was that the hairdressing industry has not been considered or approached. Well that’s probably a good thing, or we would most likely still be discussing it when the next election comes around, waiting for hairdressers to agree.
She also states the funding is capped at $5000 is the reason the high profile providers have not been accepted into the program. This is not true, I have trained literally thousands of hairdressers over the past 35 years and cost has never been a factor. If Ruth chooses not to take up the opportunity the government has offered, that’s fine but don’t condemn those that have. I have always said, he or she who charges the price is the one taking the risk, whether it is high medium or low. However I do agree you can’t train someone in 650 hours. I will be applying the full 1650 hours for Cert 111. Ruth suggests this is a short-term stopgap approach which will have devastating long term consequences. However, it could also mean a future in hairdressing for many who normally would not get the opportunity. You don’t need a high level of education to enter hairdressing. The PPP is open to all over the age of 15 who have not completed year 12. Year 12 is form 6 in old terms which is much higher than what was the norm 15 years ago.
If you take Ruth’s advise and visit www.productivityplaces.deewr.gov.au you will find the name edward beale and many other reputable names, her reference to this as a race to the bottom (lowest common denominator) is an insult to myself and others who have entered the Productivity Places Program. To conclude high quality standards in training in the hairdressing industry also depends on the commitment and dedication of educators and the student alike not necessarily resources.
Yours truly,
edward beale
Just because traditionally certain vocational courses have cost higher amounts doesn’t mean that those training organisations who have joined the PPP have to cut corners in order to deliver the training. Many of the highly respected and biggest RTOs are already in the PPP.
Training providers have typically charged up front the full cost of the training and didn’t really have any risk. That’s fine if they’re in business only to get what they can out of it. Others with a passion for their craft want to get more people into their industry and are prepared to take a risk on unemployed people who would never otherwise get the chance to train in these sorts of careers because of their financial circumstances.
The government is taking an enormous risk in providing the funds for the PPP. It makes good fiscal sense to limit the amount spent per course to allow for the most people to benefit from the program. And it makes sense to share some of the risk with the businesses that stand to benefit most from the funds.
While I admit that the government has been extremely tight with funding for some qualifications, and they could have handled the initial administration of the program better, the program is beginning to produce results.
In an economic climate of uncertainty it’s more sensible to spend money on training for the future than it is to give money away for people to spend in stores that are sacking staff as the recession deepens. They should put the money into keeping people employed and employable for the future through training programs like the PPP.
Affordable training has NEVER hurt an industry. It has only made it stronger. And the bottom line is: Those organisations that have joined the PPP are more likely to get people through their doors during the economic slowdown than those who want to charge $20000 for a course.