Recruitment from an industry that pays more

The structural constraint behind most staffing problems.

In many fields a competent practitioner earns more in the industry than in training it, sometimes considerably. That single fact shapes the entire workforce: who is available, who stays, and what a provider can realistically require of them.

The people who move into training anyway are doing so for reasons other than pay, usually a genuine interest in teaching, a change of circumstances, or a body that can no longer do the work. Understanding which of those applies matters, because they have different needs and different longevity.

Casual and sessional arrangements dominate for the same reason, which produces a workforce with no allocated time for preparation, validation, professional development or industry currency, all of which are then expected. The requirements assume an employment relationship that frequently does not exist.

Providers that retain good trainers tend to do a small number of things: pay for the non-contact work rather than assuming goodwill, offer continuity of hours rather than term-by-term uncertainty, and fund the currency activity the framework requires.

The alternative to that is a permanent recruitment cycle, in which the accumulated knowledge of how to teach a particular topic leaves and is rebuilt, repeatedly, at a cost nobody counts because it appears as ordinary turnover.