Should the TAE qualification have prerequisites?

So as some of you know there has been a lengthy discussion around the new yet to be endorsed Certificate IV in Training and Assessment and one of the things that has come into my mind is around the reasons why people enroll into the qualification and what it is that they want to train after they gain the qualification.

I have over the years encountered a wide variety of people who when I have asked them the question ‘why do you want to do the TAE?’ have answered ‘I want to be a trainer’ which is I guess fair enough until they are asked what it is that they want to train or what skills they have that they want to pass on and they are unable to actually articulate what is it they want to train, they just want to be a trainer.  I have on some occasions where this has happened actually suggested to the person that perhaps we weren’t the best place for them and that another provider might be a better fit for them as we were really focused on what it was they wanted to train people in and working with that.

This all got me thinking, should there be prerequisites for entry into the Certificate IV in Training and Assessment and if we think so, what should they be?  So here is a swing at what it might look like;

  1. Hold a VET sector qualification or
  2. Hold a University level qualification and have substantial workplace experience (at least 3 years) in a relevant VET area, or
  3. Have substantial workplace experience (5+ years) in a relevant VET area.

Why these prerequisites?  Well that is simple under the standards you need to be able to show (small c remember) vocational competencies at, at least the level you want to train and without holding the qualification or having workplace experience that is going to be difficult in my opinion at least.

Now I can hear some people saying, but what about those people who don’t want to train VET sector qualification?  My first question  is well why are these people even considering the TAE qualification? I know the answer mostly has to do with the fact that most employers now set the qualification as a requirement for L&D people even if they aren’t delivering accredited training, but why that is, is a whole other story.  So let’s just put that aside for a moment.  The TAE in its current form is designed for people who are going to be delivering VET qualifications, all of the units on assessment and validation should at the very least be a giveaway.   If you are not going to be assessing then perhaps a course more focused on delivery and design (there are plenty out there) or one of the skills sets might be a much better option.  My second question is then the same as my earlier when, what are they going to train and again if they can’t articulate what it is they want to train, or don’t have substantial experience in an area, then I find it really difficult to see why you want to undertake the program.

Anyway that’s my opinion.


About pauldrasmussen
Paul is the winner of the 2013 Leadership in VET Quality Award and the 2013 LearnX Learning Manager of the year award. A Thought Leader and Speaker on Organisational Learning, Professional Development, Motivation, Leadership, Management and Professional Ethics, he speaks widely and has published work on the areas of Learning and Development, Learning ROI, Business, Management, Leadership and Ethics. With Qualifications in Ethics and Bioethics, Organisational Learning and Development, Training, and Business Management and Leadership, Paul has worked in and with a wide range of public, private, government and not for profit organisations. He is currently the National Training Manager for Spectrum Training and the principal consultant with Rasmussen Learning. Specialties: • Organisational Learning and Development • Ethics (Business, Professional and Theoretical) • Learning Management and ROI • Professional Speaking • RTO Management • E-Learning • Management • Leadership • Learning Management Systems

4 Responses to Should the TAE qualification have prerequisites?

  1. I couldn’t agree more Paul. I also have directed prospective students who had not VET Qualification and no idea of what they wanted to train in to other Providers. Job Network staff have often referred unemployed clients, because of the number of “trainer jobs” they see advertised. Very frustrating!!

  2. Jim Davidson says:

    In some ways I agree with you. However, the TAE is a requirement to train as is a grader ticket a requirement to operate. Yet both are only a foisted qualification cost to experienced people foisted on industry. Having any ticket still does not demonstrate ability. Unfortunately many HR managers will overlook experience and skill in favour of neither but with tickets. This again is an impost promoted by OHS and HR gurus. TLISC has a good system of developing training packages. Industry does it: HR, OHS and RTOs are specifically excluded from the committees. The result is that they have developed new and workable useable packages for the entire transport and logistics industry now coming into force. Look at the older e.g. civils and mining packages and who has developed them, how much practical knowledge and experience they have and how much bullshit is included in some.

    Your big question is YES. People training in any sector SHOULD have experience doing the jobs they are now training. As with OHS people. Too many get their info from a book or a seminar or a DVD. Too few have done the jobs so they understand the work and risks involved. They just spout forth and are ignored by those at risk as being incompetent and lacking knowledge. Many trainers can not explain a question/technique/statement they have just read out from a book or screen. How they get jobs is beyond me sometimes.

  3. Di Rush says:

    I agree with what you are saying Paul. I too have asked the question of prospective learners as to what it is they want to train once qualified, what skills and knowledge do you want to pass on, and like you have also recommended a different course of action for some. I think the new Cert IV, when it is finally endorsed goes some way towards a pre-requisite, but how it will work in practice we will have to wait and see.
    I also agree, that for some reason a lot of industries who are not RTO’s, and who are not issuing nationally recognised qualifications, insist on their workplace trainers gaining the Cert IV where in fact a skill set would be much more suitable.
    Not sure what is to be done about that in times to come.

  4. jadebretzke says:

    Sent from Samsung Mobile

Let me Know what you think

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: