|Hello and welcome VET News,
Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the devastating floods that have affected the southeast QLD and the Northern Rivers area of of NSW. Those towns which have been impacted by the flooding have had their homes and businesses devastated. We have many clients in this region and wish them a speedy recovery. I think we were all shocked by the impact of the flood and hope that help is getting to those who need it most.
On the news, I note the announcement by the Federal Government that ASQA is being appointed as the assurance body responsible for national training package. I think this is a great development. It potentially will help to resolve issues where there are discrepancies between what the training package developer intended and how this is interpreted by ASQA auditors. It should also have the effect of injecting greater awareness of industry requirements and how this relates to training and regulation. I have been watching this space for the last 20 years and I think this is a very positive development.
On a final note, many of you know that I have spoken and written a lot over the years on the concept of Equivalent Vocational Competency (article 13th Oct 2020). I am watching with interest a matter working its way through ASQA that just highlights how inconsistent and confusing the National Regulator’s approach is when regulating this area of the standards (Clause 1.13a). I will provide further information when we have a result, but at the heart of this issue is the micro level of evidence now being required by the National Regulator to verify a trainer’s equivalent vocational competency. On one hand the National Regulator say that it is not a requirement for the RTO to present a competency mapping with the trainer’s experience and then, on the other they make the RTO non-compliant because it has not provided evidence that satisfies every single knowledge evidence, performance criteria and performance evidence in every unit being delivered by the trainer. On one hand a trainer is found compliant by an ASQA auditor to deliver a qualification (in which they have worked their entire working life and are licenced) and then only 24 months later a different ASQA auditor reviewing the same (but updated) evidence finds the same trainer non-compliant for the very same competencies. Just outrageous and screams of poor information management and poor quality control. The level of inconsistency in ASQA’s audit model is in my view at an all-time low. The potential implications relating to a trainer’s equivalent vocational competency resulting from this issue are significant. It seems to me that the regulator is suggesting though its interpretation that an RTO should require all trainers who do not actually hold the competencies being delivered to formalise their competency through RPL. I will provide an update when possible, but in the meantime, I strongly suggest that you take another look at the level of evidence you are relying on for trainers who do not actually hold the competences they are delivering.
Invite others to subscribe to VET News: Subscribe to VET News
Check-out our most recent article: Enrolment Models and Considerations
Test you compliance knowledge with our RTO Compliance Quiz