❓ A parliamentary question seeking a breakdown of unsuccessful TAFE applicants by institution and reasons for rejection, followed by the Minister's response detailing the numbers, selection criteria, and support offered to unsuccessful applicants.
AnsweredQoN 2480Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to your media statement of the 4 February 2010 titled, ‘More students to study at publicly funded training colleges this year’, where you state that 84 percent of the 15 411 applications for semester one at TAFE were offered a place in a training course, and I ask -
(1) How many of the remaining 2 465 applicants that were not successful in being offered a place, were from each of the following, -
(a) Central Institute of Technology;
(b) Challenger Institute of Technology;
(c) Polytechnic West;
(d) West Coast Institute of Training;
(e) Durack Institute of Technology;
(f) C.Y. O’Connor College of TAFE;
(g) Great Southern Institute of Technology;
(h) Kimberley TAFE;
(i) Pilbara TAFE; and
(j) South West Regional College of TAFE?
(2) Why were the 2 465 unsuccessful applicants not offered a place?
(3) If there were applicants who were unsuccessful because of a lack of availability, what action was taken to ensure these applicants were assisted to access training at another source?
(1) How many of the remaining 2 465 applicants that were not successful in being offered a place, were from each of the following, -
(a) Central Institute of Technology;
(b) Challenger Institute of Technology;
(c) Polytechnic West;
(d) West Coast Institute of Training;
(e) Durack Institute of Technology;
(f) C.Y. O’Connor College of TAFE;
(g) Great Southern Institute of Technology;
(h) Kimberley TAFE;
(i) Pilbara TAFE; and
(j) South West Regional College of TAFE?
(2) Why were the 2 465 unsuccessful applicants not offered a place?
(3) If there were applicants who were unsuccessful because of a lack of availability, what action was taken to ensure these applicants were assisted to access training at another source?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
10 August 2010
Responded by
Minister for Training and Workforce Development
Response time
56 days
(1) (a) 1100.
(b) 471.
(c) 547.
(d) 102.
(e) 50.
(f) 9.
(g) 73.
(h) 4.
(i) 6.
(j) 103.
(2) For those courses to which admission was competitive, applicants were assessed against selection criteria and ranked in order of merit. Many of the unsuccessful applicants had been unable to demonstrate that they met the minimum literacy and/or numeracy skills. Others chose not to provide supporting documentation when contacted and asked to supply this.
(3) Applicants who did not receive formal offers from their preferred State Training Provider were referred to other State Training Providers. Where places subsequently became available these applicants were enrolled in merit score order.
Applicants who did not receive formal offers of a place through the centralised admissions process were later offered alternative courses or study options.
Remaining applicants were contacted and provided with advice on bridging courses, pathways to their chosen qualification, and means of improving their merit score for future student intakes.
At the conclusion of the admissions process any remaining unplaced applicants were referred for further information and advice to Workforce Development Centres located throughout the State.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
(b) 471.
(c) 547.
(d) 102.
(e) 50.
(f) 9.
(g) 73.
(h) 4.
(i) 6.
(j) 103.
(2) For those courses to which admission was competitive, applicants were assessed against selection criteria and ranked in order of merit. Many of the unsuccessful applicants had been unable to demonstrate that they met the minimum literacy and/or numeracy skills. Others chose not to provide supporting documentation when contacted and asked to supply this.
(3) Applicants who did not receive formal offers from their preferred State Training Provider were referred to other State Training Providers. Where places subsequently became available these applicants were enrolled in merit score order.
Applicants who did not receive formal offers of a place through the centralised admissions process were later offered alternative courses or study options.
Remaining applicants were contacted and provided with advice on bridging courses, pathways to their chosen qualification, and means of improving their merit score for future student intakes.
At the conclusion of the admissions process any remaining unplaced applicants were referred for further information and advice to Workforce Development Centres located throughout the State.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.