Quality of assessments in VET Discussion paper – A discussion.
February 3, 2016 3 Comments
So the Federal government has just released its discussion paper on Quality Assessments in VET. This is part of some ongoing movements around the Certificate IV in TAE and other matters that has seen the new qualification being held back while the powers that be see what they can do about the perception at least, that there is a significant problem with how assessments are being carried out in the sector.
My initial comments on this are simple. There is nothing wrong with the Certificate IV in Training and assessment, particularly as an entry-level qualification into the sector. The problems with assessments in my opinion have very little to do with the Qualification and a whole lot to do with;
- Inappropriate delivery and assessment of the qualification itself by unscrupulous providers simply out for a quick buck, and
- pressure being put on trainers and assessors to ensure that people are deemed competent, again by unscrupulous providers out for a quick buck.
The problem here is not the qualification. The problem lies squarely at the feet of providers themselves. If the TAE is delivered and assessed properly, and the assessment processes within providers were up to scratch then there would be no issues. The Department, ASQA and the sector itself needs to man up and end the shonky delivery of this qualification. We all know whose TAE qualifications aren’t worth the paper they are printed on, but no one seems to want to do anything about it, and when someone suggests that we do, the old catch cry of not more regulation leaps out of the woodwork.
Now that I have got that out of the way let’s have a look at the questions/proposals in the first half of the discussion paper.
- RTO Limitations
- Is it appropriate for large number of RTOs to deliver the TAE qualification – NO. The TAE should be a qualification for which obtaining approval to deliver is a rigorous process, including having not just the assessment tools, and staff audited, but also to have the delivery of the program audited. TAE should be a special scope item outside of other areas as it is the key component within the system. The number of RTOs delivering the qualification should be reduced by ensuring that there is a heavy and continuing compliance and regulatory burden on any RTO that decides to place a TAE qualification on scope.
- Should RTOs be restricted from issuing to their own trainers and staff – NO. If the audit and compliance system is rigorous enough there should be no problems with issuing to internal staff.
- Should TAE be available through RPL – YES. There are significant number of people within this sector who are highly skilled and whom undertaking a full assessment process whenever there was a package change would be overly burdensome. Again if the regulatory controls are right RPL is appropriate.
- Should TAE only be delivered by practitioners with a specific period of training and assessment within the Sector – YES. At least 2 years FTE.
- VET trainers should have higher qualifications – YES. Anyone training the Certificate IV TAE, should hold that qualification plus and additional higher level qualification relation to VET.
- Should there be a practical component – YES. There should be either a work placement (for those not currently employed) or evidence of work (for those currently employed). It does have to be long 50-80 hours would be more than sufficient. This would ensure that graduates had actually spent time with real students and undertaken real assessments.
- Should participants in TAE be employed in the sector prior to entering the course – NO. This would overly constrict entry into the sector of people who might otherwise be able to undertake a TAE course and become quality additions to the sector.
- Skills and Qualifications of Trainers
- Should a design and development unit be made a core part of the Certificate IV and would this improve outcomes – NO and NO. Including a unit on design and development would do very little to improve student outcomes at a certificate IV level. Design and development of assessment tools is skill which is above the AQF level of a certificate IV. Assessment tools should not be being designed by someone who only holds the entry-level qualification unless that person has substantial experience within the sector and in relation to design and development
- While there should be some weight given to majority considerations, these majority considerations should be tempered strongly with the views of key stakeholders (as long as those key stakeholders are chosen wisely) and the strength of the arguments made. The idea of who are the key stakeholders for the TAE is an interesting one to ponder. I believe there needs to some representation from the sector itself, but which must include representation from both the coal face of delivery through to RTO/provider management. There must also be strong representation from government (The department of education) as they are the major stakeholder in this (you can disagree with me if you like). In the long run it is the government who is the ultimate customer for the vast majority of VET work that occurs, be that through funding or loans, or special purpose project or what ever. The system belongs to the government so it is the major stakeholder. Now I know that there are going to be calls here for the unions (AEU etc) to be involved and the academic VET research set, but in the long run the decisions about the TAE have to be made by the sector itself and the government, others can have input and ideas and the decision should and must sit with these two groups.
- VET Professional association
- Is there a need to have a national VET professional association – YES. This to me is a no brainer, of course there should be. Should membership be mandatory in order to work in the sector, yes, but there needs to be levels. So the first would be an associate member shall we say which would be open to anyone who had a TAE with very little additional in the way of requirements. From there, various level could exist depending on the experience of the person, continuing professional development, independent evaluation of their work and skills etc. This would make it easy to delineate between those at the top of the profession and those just beginning and would also encourage the continuing improvement of skills. There should also be categories for Trainers/Assessors, Management, compliance etc and a person should be able to be in multiple categories.
- The big barrier to this is of course money. It would either need to be funded by the government or it would need to be a membership fees based process. The problem with being funded is obvious, in that money would be need to be found somewhere. With membership fees two things would need to happen, one, it would need to be ensured that membership was not just a you pay your money you get your piece of paper deal or there would be no point. On the other hand the process would need to not be overly convoluted or expensive as this may be a disincentive to gaining higher levels of membership.
- Activities of a VET Association
- It needs to be a register of VET practitioners
- Develop and implement a CPD system for the sector
- Approve professional development activities for CPD points
- Promote VET sector work as an attractive career path.
- While these activities need to be coordinated at a National level, but in particular the CPD program could be achieved through existing groups and or other external structures which were approved as CPD
- There are a number of bodies with significant sectoral membership which could be utilised. One example would be ACPET, although this might be met with resistance from the public sector, another might be something along the lines of AITD, which is already a membership organisation for the learning and development sector and which has a significant number of VET sector members. In addition a private sector organisation like VELG which already has a solid VET membership base may also be an option in this area.
- Models for a VET association
- I have a preference for the type B model, it is the simplest, funding can be easily accounted for, and maintenance and management of registration and CPD needs to be held centrally anyway in my opinion.
- While model A has advantages in that it takes into account things which already exist, I think it would be too hard to manage overall and membership would not be centralised.
- Model C is simply a registration model as far as i am concerned and would add nothing to the sector.
Well so there you have it, my thoughts on at least the first half of the paper. I will make some comments on chapter two of the paper later in the week.