Collect evidence of vocational competency, including:
VET News – 19th October 2023
|
VET News – 23rd August 2023
|
Speaking ASQAneese – Part 2
Speaking ASQAneese – Part 2
This article is the second instalment of a three part article series on understanding the language of ASQAneese. ASQAneese is an important language in the lexicon of VET regulation. Whilst ASQAneese uses English as its foundation, it draws on the tones, stress and rhythm of high order bureaucracy and intonation from the planet Zorgon. ASQAneese is a highly unique language, and it is crafted to allow ASQA operatives within their social construct to communicate in secret whilst having the effect of confusing and stupefying other recipients. Unfortunately, those other recipients are usually training providers who rely on interpreting the ASQAneese for their sheer survival. The stakes could not be higher and in this article, we will continue to break down the questions that you can expect to receive in your next performance assessment so that you can respond with confidence.
If you have not yet had the chance to enjoy the previous article, I would invite you to do that first:
Speaking ASQAneese – Part 1 • Newbery Consulting
Ok, lets just recap a couple of key points that came from Part 1:
- When ASQA ask a question, they have usually already looked at and reviewed all the evidence you have already provided and all information that is internally and externally available to them.
- The question is always targeted at a specific clause or purpose and is usually motivated by some concern they have but have not yet specifically shared. All questions are loaded questions and are all aimed at either confirming or clarifying their preliminary audit findings.
- Always have a quick and high level response ready to go. Don’t worry about answering the entire question up front. The questions they ask are often simply too big. Just give them a high level answer and force them to think and ask a more specific question that is often easier to answer.
- Just answer the question. Don’t go beyond the question in your answer. Don’t give them any information they haven’t asked for. You might think it’s a moment to impress but you are just opening a can of worms that will be difficult to get the lid back on.
- Have a very detailed understanding of your policies and procedures and of your current state of compliance. Understand where your current practice is not aligned with your policies and procedures, so you are not contradicting yourself in your verbal responses.
- ASQA will literally take notes on everything you say and they will use this information as another point of reference in their evaluation of your compliance. Your comments and responses will be referenced in your audit report.
- Avoid making any claims or providing any verbal information that you cannot verify with some type of record. Remember that, after you get through explaining something the next question is always: Show me?
In the last article we looked at questions relating to training and assessment strategies, resourcing training and assessment, industry engagement and lastly assessment. In this article, we will focus on the following topics on which questions will be asked Trainers / Assessors, Continuous Improvement, and Governance. Remember, these are questions that I have observed Auditors from ASQA asking clients on numerous occasions and it’s clear to me they are literally reading the question from a script so it makes sense that you think about how you would respond to these questions.
Trainers / Assessors
Question: Can you talk me through the process for recruiting your trainers and assessors.
Interpretation: Let’s be clear, ASQA have no jurisdiction over your recruitment practices or your employment arrangements. Those aspects of your business fall under the jurisdiction of the Fair Work Ombudsman or the Fair Work Commission. What the question is really asking is: What process do you apply to verify the relevant competency and currency that the trainer requires to perform the job they are recruited for. The quick response to get to a more specific question would be “We advertise, we get applicants, they submit the documentation according to the ad requirements, we review this information and narrow the selection down to the more suitable candidates, we interview these candidates and verify their credentials in the process. We would then select candidate and offer them the position”. The next question is likely to be the next question along in this article or they might ask about whose responsibility it is to prepare relevant trainer records such as training matrix, professional development plans, about the induction process and how you bring the trainer up to speed with the quality arrangements in your organisation. Remember that it is an obligation of the standards for the organisation to inform the trainer of any relevant legislative obligations and also the arrangements the organisation has in place to comply with these. This usually might be demonstrated by some type of employment induction record that specifically identifies the topics or information that were included in the induction process.
Question: How do you verify the competency and currency of your trainers and assessors?
Interpretation: This is very common question. It often relates to something that the auditor has observed in the training records that you have already provided for review. Most people will think that this question is about how you verify the qualification and competency records the trainer presents during the recruitment process. I guess it is about that, but it is also about the process you go through to align the vocational competency that the trainer holds with the competencies they are nominated to deliver. I would argue this is the primary purpose of the question. Regarding the document verification aspect of the question, you can explain that you will check the qualifications and competencies issued against a USI transcript (this is only useful if the qualification was issued after 2014). You can also contact the issuing organisation to verify the training products that were issued, verify the training organisations details and scope of registration at the time against the national training register, et cetera. These are few and more common ways of verifying competencies issued. I would always recommend that you record the verification method and date and by who on the document prior to retaining it in your trainer records.
In relation to verifying the trainer’s vocational competency according to the units of competency they are nominated to deliver, this is a huge question which I can sum up for you but, I would recommend that you read the following article Equivalent Vocational Competency. The quick answer is that you firstly identify the units of competency the trainer already holds which are directly equivalent to the units of competency to be delivered and you record these in your training matrix. Next, you identify the units of competency the trainer is nominated to deliver and which they do not hold equivalent units and therefore will be relying on presenting evidence of equivalent vocational competency. This is where you really get to the guts of the question because, what they are really wanting to know is what process you apply to undertake a mapping of the trainers past industry experience and related education training to come to the decision that they are sufficiently competent to deliver the units of competency which you have nominated them for. Remember that, ASQA are trying to determine how you satisfied yourself that the trainer was sufficiently competent. This evidence normally needs to be very detailed and identify in the trainer’s very recent vocational experience how they routinely perform the tasks outlined in the units of competency. Remember that the definition of “current industry skills and knowledge” includes a requirement for “industry experience” and I would argue that when you are trying to demonstrate equivalent vocational competency, industry experience is the most important factor. If the trainer cannot provide verifiable evidence that they have current industry experience performing the tasks outlined in the relevant unit of competency, then I would not nominate them for the unit. You would usually document this evidence of industry experience, relevant education and training, referees, employment experience, et cetera in a competency mapping document. It is quite important that this information reflects the requirements of the unit of competency at least to the element of competency level. I find that it is much better to collect this information through an interview with the trainer then to expect that they will provide you the level of detail you require. They will not. Organise an interview and go through each unit of competency and ask lots of questions.
Question: How do you ensure that trainers maintain their currency?
Interpretation: Before you answer this question, you need to know what your policy and procedure says. You also need to know what the state of your trainer currency evidence is. Does your policy that you have already handed over to ASQA require the trainer to participate in a minimum number of currency activities per year? What type of currency activities does the policy require? Does it require currency related evidence in relation to the trainer vocational skills and knowledge and what about their training and assessment skills and knowledge? How do the current training records (which you have already provided to the auditor) compare with the requirements of this policy? Your answer to all these questions is going to heavily influence how you respond. The important thing is, don’t contradict your own arrangements.
I’m not going to try and provide some benchmark answer for this question because literally the options are too broad. I do have a couple of key points to make:
- Evidence that the trainer is still carrying on work in industry even on a part time level is literally the strongest evidence of industry currency that you can get. This might be demonstrated by a letter from a current or recent employer. If you are requesting this, it’s good to request that they provide an outline of the type of duties the person performed and if possible, even get a copy of their duty statement. You can use this information not only for currency but also your equivalent vocational competency mapping.
- Evidence of vocational currency secondary to actually still working in industry might include things like, participating in industry professional development, participating in industry networking groups, undertaking workplace visits, staying abreast of industry developments by reading articles, work shadowing, maintaining industry memberships and licences, et cetera.
- Evidence in the form of the CV or work references of the trainer’s amazing experience as a “trainer” does not provide evidence of vocational currency or competency. I see evidence from clients that trainers have been bouncing from one college to the next for the last 15 years as a professional trainer. None of this experience contributes to demonstrating vocational currency. I can tell you that literally, ASQA do you not care that your trainer is the most experienced trainer in the world in whatever skill they have. If they haven’t recently worked in industry or can provide other fundamentally strong evidence of industry currency, it’s not going to fly. Clients say to me “but he teaches this stuff every day”. ASQA do not care. I often ask the client to get the trainer to rewrite their CV as though they are applying for a job back in industry and need to demonstrate their vast “industry” experience, not trainer experience.
- It’s worth noting that there is no mandatory requirement for industry related professional development. Yes, industry professional development helps with the trainer demonstrating their industry currency but there are many other ways of doing this. The only specific mandatory requirement for professional development relates to clause 1.16 where the trainer needs to demonstrate that they have participated in “ongoing professional development relating to vocational education and training including competency based training and assessment”. As a general recommendation, I recommend that the trainer completes about 3-4 professional development activities per year. I would also just reinforce the point that these professional development activities need to relate to delivering training and undertaking assessment. I make this point because I often see client’s trainers have participated in “compliance” related training which is not strictly about delivering training or undertaking assessment and I would usually advise the client that this does not help to satisfy clause 1.16.
Question: Can you tell me how you self-assure your trainers and assessors meet and continue to meet the vocational currency and training and assessment currency?
Interpretation: We had a number of questions like this in part one which relate to your arrangements to verify or validate something has occurred in accordance with the policy and procedure. What quality controls do you have in place to confirm that the trainers and assessors continue to meet the requirements of demonstrating currency in both their vocational and training assessment skills and knowledge. Of course, the answer to this will be based on your own internal arrangements. You need to remember that the national regulator expects that these trainers meet this requirement all the time. So, taking that into account, doing a random selection sampling of trainer records once a year is not really going to cut it. The answer needs to be a combination of both proactive strategies combined with quality assurance to monitor that policies are being complied with and records are being maintained. Proactive strategies might include applying a rigorous professional development calendar and making it mandatory that trainers attend. This might be a combination of both internal professional development and external professional development. Putting trainer professional development and compliance as a standard agenda item of management meetings is also a good idea. It’s always on the agenda and top of mind so it’s not something that falls into the background and doesn’t get complied with. Putting in place some type of incentive for trainers to comply with minimum currency evidence requirements is also a good idea. This could be financial, or material or recognition based.
In terms of “self-assurance”, we are really talking about things like trainer record review checklists and processes for undertaking these reviews on a regular basis. I wouldn’t recommend anything less than every six months. I would also recommend that this includes a sit down meeting with the trainer to go over these records to jointly identify the items that are outstanding which they need to follow up and provide within a defined timeframe. I would recommend doing this in March and October to avoid the end of the year crush. The outcomes of these reviews should be centrally recorded and reported back to the management meeting to make sure that they stay on the agenda and are rectified or the trainer is taken off the books. I totally understand that trainers are a scarce commodity. But, a trainer that does not comply with your requirements is a liability to your organisation. If you have a trainer like this, you either need to performance manage them to fix the problem or manage them out of the organisation and make them the problem of your competitor. Maintain evidence of these periodic reviews on the training records and make sure you keep accurate and well organised trainer records that are easily accessible. So, you can see that this “self-assurance” arrangement is multifaceted. It includes proactive strategies to prevent the problem in the first place. It includes policy arrangements that require periodic review, forms and checklists to conduct the review in a consistent way and finally, feeding the outcomes of the review into the management or continuous improvement process so that they are centrally managed.
Your immediate response might be something like: “Sure, we have policy arrangements that trainers are expected to comply with. These specify minimum requirements regarding the evidence of trainer currency. We provide a program of professional development activities to assist with this and we undertake regular trainer record reviews using established checklists to confirm that trainers are maintaining their currency. The outcomes of these reviews are managed in consultation with the trainer and within the management meeting”. The auditor will then ask a more specif question.
Continuous Improvement
Question: Can you talk me through your arrangements to apply continuous improvement to your training and assessment.
Interpretation: OK, let’s just keep in mind that when they ask this question, they already have a copy of your continuous improvement register, continuous improvement policy, your assessment validation schedule and records, your complaints register and policy, industry engagement evidence, et cetera. Obviously, your answer will be based on your own arrangements and how confident you are that your organisation is systematically applying continuous improvement.
Remember that, fundamentally continuous improvement is a very basic process of collecting information on how your training and assessment is performing and using this information to identify and act on opportunities for improvement. Simple. Of course, there are lots of other bits and pieces that sit around this such as some type of information management system to record these opportunities for improvement (this could be a register in a word document) and a management function to coordinate the implementation of improvement activities. So, when you get asked a question about your “arrangements” to apply continuous improvement think, process (PDCA), information collection, management coordination and information management.
Most of the time, this question arises because the auditor has identified something in the documentation that you have already provided where it is apparent to them that there is some type of breakdown or failure in your continuous improvement arrangements. As an example, they may have identified that the outcomes of an assessment validation were not recorded in your continuous improvement register or, maybe it was recorded but these improvements were not acted upon. That’s a classic. Maybe your industry engagement evidence identified some opportunities to customise the training to make it more relevant to industry but there was no record of this in your continuous improvement register. Maybe the continuous improvement register did identify improvements that needed to occur to assessment, but in the review of the sample assessment tools, it is not clear that these improvements were implemented across all assessment tools. Maybe there is a continuous improvement item in your register relating to a training and assessment strategy that suggests improvements were acted upon in Aug 2022. Logic would dictate that this would have led to a revised version of the strategy, but the strategy you provided as evidence appears to be in version 1.0. So, either your document management and version control are not working or your continuous improvement arrangement are not working. You see my point. They have identified something that appears to be a non-compliance with clause 2.1 and they are gathering information to verify how systemic that non-compliance is.
Continuous improvement really sits at the center of the entire RTO operation. I guess the take home message here is, have a good understanding of the components that make up your “arrangements for continuous improvement”. Make sure that your policy and procedure on continuous improvement supports these arrangements or alternatively adjust your arrangements to align with your policy. Most importantly, before you hand over any continuous improvement register, make sure this is up to date and in full alignment with other documents you are handing over and outcomes that may have emerged from assessment validation, industry engagement, complaints and appeals, et cetera.
Just one more little side note here. Last year we had a client going through their renewal of registration audit and in the process of this the auditor wanted to interview some trainers. One of the trainers was being very helpful and in response to a question about whether the trainer had access to the required equipment and resources, the trainer informed the auditor that they had communicated requests for additional equipment to management on several occasions and they were informed that it was raised as a continuous improvement. This one piece of information had a cascading effect on the audit. The auditor raised this at the management meeting and wanted to know why there was no record of this in the continuous improvement register. It also alerted the auditor to some deficiencies in the resourcing of training and assessment. Now, clearly these things need to be addressed and I’m not suggesting otherwise but, the point I would make is that, this process of auditing is not simply documentary. Everything that you say, or the trainer says or anyone that the auditor talks to, gets recorded and will be used to either verify or not your compliance.
If I were to provide a high level answer in response to this question it would go something like this: We actively collect relevant information that allows us to identify opportunities for improvement in our training and assessment. This includes information such as feedback from trainers, outcomes of assessment validation, feedback from students and outcomes from our assessment quality control, as examples. These outcomes are reviewed and where relevant are referred as an opportunity for improvement to the management meeting where they are considered and if warranted are created as improvement actions which are acted upon as part of our continuous improvement process. The auditor will then ask a more specific question which is actually the basis for their concern.
Question: What data and information do you collect to monitor the quality and compliance of training and assessment?
Interpretation: This question relates to the “Check” step in PDCA. The question is asking what your arrangements are to collect information to identify opportunities for improvement in training and assessment. The obvious items are, assessment validation outcomes (1), outcomes of industry engagement (2), survey feedback from students (3), feedback from trainees and assessors (4). Obviously, there are lots more information sources such as outcomes from complaints or appeals and particularly when we start thinking about the next question which relates to self-assurance practices. But, these four are really the common information collection sources that inform the improvement of training and assessment and if you are not systematically collecting this information and feeding it into your continuous improvement model then you need to start straight away. I know that some of these information items are easier to collect than others. Of course, trainers are an endless source of suggestions and feedback! 😊Getting feedback from industry is like getting blood from a stone. We all realise this but, ASQA exist in some fantasy land where apparently employers are falling over themselves to donate their spare time to help the RTO to improve their business.Getting students to complete feedback surveys is difficult and, in most cases, they will complete it as a tick and flick exercise and don’t offer genuine feedback. Every training organisation in the country struggles with implementing assessment validation and when they do genuinely identify useful outcomes from validation, these are not implemented consistently across all training products. So, I totally realise that even though we can identify these four specific information sources that, it is still not easy, but this is where we need to focus. If you can focus on just these four items, you will have a good story to tell in relation to what information you are collecting to monitor the quality and compliance of your training and assessment.
I would provide an immediate response something like: “Sure, as you are aware, we undertake a program of assessment validation which results in outcomes that inform our continuous improvement. We implement a regular program of seeking feedback from both industry and students on their satisfaction with the training and assessment being delivered and we also have an arrangement to collect feedback or suggestions from trainers. All these item’s feed into and inform our continuous improvement”. From there, the auditor is likely to then ask for some examples in relation to each of these items which you should have ready to go. A big part of demonstrating how you are reacting to opportunities for improvement that result from this information collection is the paper trail. My big suggestion is that you have a basic document that might only be one page called a “Continuous Improvement Record”. It doesn’t matter where the opportunity for improvement or suggestion comes from, it goes onto the Continuous Improvement Record which is centrally collected and used to discuss these opportunities for improvement at the next management meeting. These records should be retained as evidence. If it was agreed that the opportunity for improvement was valid and needs to be acted upon, then it goes into the continuous improvement register where someone will be allocated responsibility to respond and will update the management meeting of progress at a future management meeting. And around we go.
You see, when the auditor asks for an example, you can blurt out the best story possible about how the trainer provided this awesome feedback which you acted upon to improve your awesome training and assessment arrangements, but the next question is: Show me? Having continuous improvement paper trail is a great way to show how an opportunity for improvement first commenced and where the information was sourced initially that informed the opportunity for improvement. Another quick suggestion in your continuous improvement register is to create a column with some pre-designated drop down options that relate to the source of information relating to each opportunity for improvement. These might be Validation Outcome, Industry Feedback, Student Feedback, Trainer Suggestion, as an example. Having this column particularly in a spreadsheet will allow you to sort the improvement actions according to the information source column. This is useful when the auditor asks you for specific examples relating to opportunities for improvement resulting from say, industry engagement, as an example. Remember that, improvement cannot happen without collecting information that identifies something that needs to be improved. Focus on the big four and make sure you have a paper or digital trail to demonstrate how you acted upon these opportunities. You have got this!!
Question: How have you embedded self-assurance practices and continuous improvement into your operating model?
Interpretation: This is such a big question. Classic ASQAneese! I love how ASQA throw these big words around like “self-assurance practices” when neither they nor their auditors really understand what this means. Do you remember back in 2020 when ASQA made all of this hoohha about promoting “self-assurance”. They made all of these commitments around all the guidance and support they were going to provide to assist the sector with implementing arrangements for self-assurance and in reality, they have done none of this. This would have to be one of the biggest policy embarrassments that I have ever seen in my 20 years involved in VET regulation. Basically, they produced a graphic that identified continuous improvement around the outside of the circle and “quality outcomes” at the centre of the circle (mind blowing emoji insert here) and since then, they have done nothing. If you sense that I am just a little bit annoyed about this, you are right. Whoever had carriage of responsibility for the implementation of this self-assurance model at ASQA should reflect on the fact that it amounted to nothing because the job was not finished. Ok, just had to get that little rant out, now I am done!
So, self-assurance practices. I would highly recommend an article that I wrote back in Aug 2021 on RTO self-assurance (Click). In this article, I talk about a systems approach to self-assurance where you combine assurance coordination through your management team meetings, implementing a calendar of assurance activities throughout the year and focusing on getting right local assurance actions working. It’s all explained in the article, so I won’t try to re-explain here. I am going to assume that all of you are implementing some form of self-assurance practices. You may not immediately recognise it as this but in my experience, everyone is undertaking some type of “self-assurance”. What are we talking about? We are talking about the steps you have built into your operation to make sure that things happen. One of the very early examples of this that I noticed when reviewing a client’s enrolment arrangements was a simple administrative checklist the team in the office had developed and would staple on the inside of the student record. This checklist was implemented to ensure that throughout the student’s enrolment lifecycle that all the relevant documents were collected and verified and important steps were completed. Great stuff! We are talking about things like the collection of funding eligibility records, verification of the USI, training plan approval, resources issued, trainer allocated, orientation complete, LLN assessment complete, et cetera, et cetera. What function is this checklist performing? It’s performing lots of functions but primarily, it provides a mechanism to achieve administrative handling consistency regardless of whether you have been in that job for three years or for three weeks. It is reducing (not eliminating) the potential for important steps in the process to fail because, it’s in the checklist and if you just follow the checklist, you will be ok. The checklist includes the sum of corporate knowledge about what is required in the collection, verification and retention of student records to support compliance. This is a great example of a self-assurance practice. In our model of a Systems Approach to Self-assurance this is what we would identify as a “local assurance action”. It’s an action that an individual or a team completes to make sure that things are happening the way they are required to happen. Here are some other examples:
- Process and checklist to review a training and assessment strategy before it is approved and implemented.
- Process and checklist to confirm that sufficient equipment and resources are available for delivery of a training product.
- Process and checklist to undertake pre-assessment validation of an assessment tool to ensure it complies with the requirement of the training package.
- Process and checklist to review completed assessment before it is approved and reported in the student management system.
- Process and checklist to undertake post-assessment validation to ensure that assessment is being implemented as designed and according to the principles of assessment and the rule of evidence.
- Process and checklist to review a trainers recocords for competency, currency, licencing, clearances, professional development, et cetera.
- Process and checklist to review marketing material for compliance before it is release to the market.
- Process and checklist to confirm all training package and administrative requirements have been met before any AQF certificate is issued.
The second part of the question is asking about your continuous improvement arrangements and of course, outcomes identified through self-assurance should feed directly into your continuous improvement arrangements to ensure that these opportunities for improvement are acted upon across your operation. I would strongly advocate a fortnightly management meeting with a set agenda which includes reviewing your continuous improvement opportunities and actions.
Before you can answer this question, I guess you need to consider what you are doing in the way of self-assurance. Some of you may not be doing much at all and if that is the case, this should act as a prompt to get moving. As I have said a number of times in this article series, these audits are heavily focused on governance and self-assurance so if your training organisation is currently running on ad hoc and undocumented arrangements, it is time to tighten things up and think about implementing systematic self-assurance arrangements. I would recommend following the steps in our article A systems approach to RTO self-assurance.
Governance
Question: Can you talk me through the systems you have in place to ensure the provider’s business objectives and risk management strategies align with the Standards for RTOs? Seriously, read this one twice!
Interpretation: This is one of the most bizarre questions I have ever heard asked in an audit. This question really goes to the core of why I came up with the concept of ASQAneese. I mean, I can certainly get my head around the question but, can you imagine being asked this question out of the blue in a management meeting and sitting there thinking to yourself, “What??”. I once said to an auditor during a meeting with the client, “Sorry can you just elaborate on exactly what you’re asking”. It became clear to me that the auditor didn’t really understand what she was asking either. After fluffing around for a minute she said “I am just wanting to understand the systems you have in place to ensure your business objectives and risk management strategies align with the Standards for RTOs”. If I could insert a crying-laughing emoji here, I would. She just went back to the script because she didn’t know what else to do or say. Probably a good strategy in the circumstance.
OK let’s break it down, when we are talking about business objectives these can be different for different types of organisations. If you are a Community College, your objective is to maintain and grow your services to the community to support community skilling needs whilst at least covering your operating costs. If you are a for profit business, your objective is to deliver on the service you have promised your client and ensure that students get the skills and knowledge they need whilst trying to make a profit. So, when they ask about “business objectives” I would just consider this at a very high level. As an example, you might identify that your business objectives are to deliver high quality services whilst maintaining a healthy viable business, simple.
Now, “risk management strategies” in this context is complex to consider. The question assumes that all RTOs use risk management strategies as a basis for the management of their business risk and their compliance risk. Of course, it is a stupid assumption. Some might say wildly optimistic. I have had a long involvement with risk management. I have written policies on risk management; I undertook project to analyse the opportunities in the national training system to consolidate the risk management units across all training packages, I delivered a national workshops series to RTOs for years on using risk management to manage compliance in an RTO. I understand “risk management strategies” and I also understand that it is extremely rare to see any RTO actively using risk management as the basis for managing alignment with the Standards for RTOs. At the risk of appearing condescending, the problem is that “risk management” as a planning strategy or analysis framework is beyond most people’s capacity to fully utilise. Most people get confused in the subjectivity of allocating a likelihood and consequence and cannot see the forest through the trees when identifying treatments or managing residual risk. Sadly, I love that crap, but it is a hard push to convince the masses of its utility. I occasionally strike the odd “systems thinker” and they get it but, these people are rare. Now, overlay that reality with this crazy expectation that ASQA has that you are all using risk management strategies to align with the Standards for RTOs. To borrow a pun from one of my favourite movies “Tell’em their dreaming”. It is noteworthy that risk management features in the draft proposed RTO Standards that were released for comment in Oct 2022 including the specific requirement: “to identify and manage risks to the achievement of the outcomes described in the Standards”. It is likely that it will be a feature in the new Standards for RTOs when they are released.
The crux of this question is what I commonly call the “quality vs efficiency conundrum”. If you read the question it is basically asking, how do you manage the tension between your business objectives whilst staying compliant with the RTO standards. This is a conversation I have with clients virtually every day trying to help them navigate how they have their services structured to be able to compete in the marketplace whilst maintaining their compliance with the standards. Of course, this is usually managed through good judgement and risk versus reward consideration. Let’s consider an example. You are planning the delivery of a new skill set and your market analysis has identified others delivering this skill set in a very short duration. Question. Do you decide to meet the market and deliver the course in a similar timeframe to your competitors, or do you deliver the course in a timeframe that is more consistent with quality training and assessment and try and differentiate your market offering through a more quality based approach and adding value in other ways? You also realise that there is a realistic ceiling on the amount the market is likely to pay for this course (regardless of the quality) and so delivering the course in a shorter duration will allow you to reduce your wages cost therefore hopefully making the course at least profitable. You know that if you go for the short duration, you will struggle to justify this to ASQA but you also realise that given the market capped course fee, you will not be profitable if you go for the longer duration. What do you do? I can answer that question maybe in another article but, you get my point in relation to the quality versus efficiency conundrum. That is exactly what this question is about.
Ok, so how do you respond to this question. For 90% of RTOs, the response will go something like: “We don’t formally use a risk management strategy in relation to managing the alignment of our business objectives with our obligations under the standards. I guess we do intuitively do this when we are making business decisions about the delivery of services, and we often need to balance those decisions with managing our compliance. We will often make decisions about adjusting the delivery of services to support our compliance and in some cases, we will choose not to deliver a service because we can’t otherwise compete in the market and stay compliant at the same time and that’s a decision we sometimes need to make. Our RTO registration and therefore compliance with the standards is a fundamental underpinning requirement of our entire business operation and therefore, our compliance with the standards will always take precedence over business opportunities and that means that we usually need to innovate and carefully choose our market offering to operate a successful business at the same time as maintaining our compliance”.
Far out! Did you see me thread that needle!! Look, it is a stupid question. The ASQA Dozen really outdid themselves with this one. I think in answering the question you just need to consider your business approach to managing that quality versus efficiency balance point. How do you balance your business objectives of maintaining a healthy profitable business with competing in the marketplace and delivering quality services in accordance with standards? There is a balance point right there in the middle that you all need to consider what your approach to this is and how you manage that risk. Once you work that out, thats how you anser the question.
Conclusion
In part three we will discuss further questions relating to governance, third party arrangements, marketing, and enrolment. I know these are monster articles to read but I appreciate your positive feedback. We love supporting the VET sector and it is clear there is I need in the sector to understand how to communicate with the national regulator particularly during one of these performance assessments. I hope these articles are helpful to you and I look forward to providing more interpretations of these tricky questions in Speaking ASQAneese – Part 3.
Good training,
Joe Newbery
Published: 22nd August 2023
Copyright © Newbery Consulting 2021. All rights reserved.
VET News – 13th July 2023
|
Speaking ASQAneese – Part 1
Speaking ASQAneese – Part 1
Have you recently found yourself sitting on a Teams meeting with an ASQA Auditor and they are going through a series of questions that you are just dumbfounded by? Its like, they ask the question, and you think to yourself – She is definitely speaking English but I have no idea what she just asked me. Ok, you are not alone. Don’t worry, it is not you. You are normal. You are intelligent. You are not stupid.
In this three part article series, I want to try and explain what these questions are asking. If you haven’t yet been exposed to the famous ASQA inquisition called the “Management Meeting”, this article will be helpful to assist you in understanding the actual question behind the question.
How did ASQA come up with these questions?
I understand in November 2021 after the end of the second lockdown, ASQA called in its top ten bureaucratic operatives from around the country to a secret meeting in the Dungeon of the Sydney Elizabeth Street office. After getting past security which apparently involved a secret handshake, only ASQAneese was allowed to be spoken to counter any attempted electronic eavesdropping. Apparently, there were also two special invited guests who were Senior Bureaucratic Tacticians from the planet Zorgon. Together, this crack team of bureaucrats would be known as the “ASQA Dozen”. The Dozen (as they are now referred) set about unpacking the standards and crafting questions that whilst using English as the basis for the words in the question, the questions would masterfully string together these words in a way that would be sure to confuse even the most experienced Commonwealth Department Secretary. The Dozen worked tirelessly and after two days and two nights they emerged on the third day to survey the body of questions they had created, and the Dozen saw that it was good. It was a master stroke. The questions would both bamboozle and systematically inflict the feeling of stupidity on the recipient. With their work completed and after a couple of Chardonnays at the Fix Wine Bar, the Tacticians beamed back to Zorgon and the ASQA Operatives dispersed to their home kingdoms. Job done!
Considerations when responding to questions
I think it’s important to note, these questions are being asked in the context of some type of performance monitoring or audit. ASQA has access to all sorts of other information that relate to the questions they are asking. Primarily this includes:
- Information they have collected on you externally such as publicly available information from the internet, information sharing from other agencies, survey responses from your students.
- Information you provide them on your strategies and arrangements such as your policies and procedures, training and assessment strategies, et cetera.
- Information you provide them on your implemented practices such student enrolment and assessment records, continuous improvement records, validation records, record of complaint handling, et cetera.
This next point is probably the key take home point from this article so please take note. When they ask you a question like “Can you explain how you ensure your marketing material is accurate and reflects your registration obligations?”, you need to keep in mind that they have already read your marketing policy and documented arrangements, they have already looked at a sample of your marketing material that you have provided and also your marketing material that is publicly available such as your website. They have already formed a view about the compliance of your marketing. So, you can see that the question is essentially a bear trap. They are basically inviting you to reinforce and acknowledge what they already know.
I see clients just start blurting out information to the auditor without thinking about what their policy and procedure says and in doing so contradicting their own arrangements. This sends a very damaging message to the national regulator. It basically says that the management have really no idea what their own policy and arrangements are and therefore they are not implementing these arrangements and have very poor governance. I say to clients regularly that, when you answer these questions you not only need to understand your state of compliance in relation to the question, but you also need to understand your own policy and arrangements. When you answer the question, you need to not contradict your own arrangements and you also need to fully understand where your current arrangements are either compliant or need improvement. If you have already verified that your practices are compliant and you have well documented arrangements, then you can talk confidently about these arrangements and their implementation which is just reinforcing what the auditor already understands. If you know that your practices are non-compliant, then you can acknowledge this in your answer. I suppose the key point is, you need to have a knowledge of your own arrangements and your own state of compliance and be prepared to answer the question in a way that doesn’t contradict yourself or make your organisation look stupid.
I have lost count of the number of times I read a different version of the following statement in audit reports:
“Review of the organisations marketing material identifies that the marketing and advertising of services is not consistent with the services being delivered. The provider’s marketing policy and procedure indicates that a quality check will be undertaken on all marketing material before it is released to the market using a marketing checklist and that the CEO is required to approve all marketing material. Noting this, at the management meeting, the CEO indicated that the training manager is responsible for the release of marketing material which is updated regularly. The CEO was not familiar with any marketing checklist that was in use and the organisation was not able to provide any example of a marketing checklist that it had completed. The organisation’s practices are not consistent with its own policy and do not accurately represent the services it provides and the training products on its scope of registration”.
I have read a similar statement for just about every clause in the standard. What does it say about the RTO? It says that the organisation has a policy that they a not familiar with and do not implement. It says that the CEO is not taking an active role in the governance of the organisation’s compliance. It says that the organisation’s marketing material is non-compliant and it has insufficient arrangements to comply with the relevant clause (4.1). Now, you might think I am being a little harsh but seriously, it is better to hear this from me than to get it in an audit report. I am sure that anyone that has been recently through a renewal of registration audit will reinforce what I’m saying here.
Key points to take away:
- Understand your current state of compliance and what you are currently doing to improve this.
- Have a detailed understanding of your current documented policy and procedures.
- Review and rehearse your answer to these questions in a way that does not contradict your documented policies and procedures and acknowledges your current state of compliance.
- Work hard on making sure that your arrangements are compliant and are in alignment with your documented policies and procedures.
I might just finish with one more sneaky point before we get into the questions. Be careful what you say in one of these performance monitoring audits. Everything you say is being recorded by a note taker (usually the auditor or an assistant) and will be used in the subsequent audit report. Also, if you say that something has occurred that has some type of record associated to it, be prepared that the auditor will say “fantastic, can you provide me a copy of that”. Sometimes I sit there in a performance monitoring management meeting thinking to myself “far out, please stop talking!”. Sometimes, clients feel very comfortable because the auditor is so nice, and they get on a roll and just start telling their entire story. They start telling the auditor all sorts of things because they think it is impressing the auditor but in reality, what it’s doing is opening lots of cans of worms. Just answer the question as simply as possible and don’t mention anything that you cannot verify in a record. Because they will ask for it!
Also, sometimes you are better off providing a very top level general response to a question and then let the auditor come back with another question drilling down to something more specific. I will touch on this in the article but I do think this is pretty important. Many of these questions are really big questions. Many are simply too big to answer one response. If you think about the marketing question example that I provided in an earlier paragraph, I might respond to that question by simply saying that “Our marketing material is prepared in draft and then checked using a marketing compliance checklist before being passed to the CEO for approval’. That’s it. Answer the question with as few words as possible. Put the audit evidence gathering obligation back on the auditor to come up with a more specific question to which you can then respond. OK, let’s get into it.
Interpreting questions in ASQAneese
I have presented the questions below according to the standard or area of the standards that they apply to. These questions have come from a range of sources including being asked during performance assessment management meetings, issued to clients in information requests, issued as part of a strategic review, et cetera.
Training and Assessment Strategy Questions
Question: How do management ensure that training assessment is meeting the needs of the training package?
Interpretation: This question is really asking what arrangements you apply in the development of your training and assessment strategies to ensure these are aligned with the training package. By the “needs of the training package” we are referring to qualification framework requirements such as the options for the selection of elective units, entry requirements, mandatory work placement, pre-requisite requirements, unit of competency requirements such as assessment requirements, et cetera. Your answer might refer to how you identify the initial need for the training, how you identify the target learner and their needs, the process to consult with industry, the planning of resources connected with delivering the training and assessment, the final production, review and approval of the training and assessment strategy. You could talk about how you analyse the unit of competency requirements to make sure that these are all considered during the design process. Some of our clients send their training and assessment strategies out for an external review and approval. So, the client can talk about this external review and provide evidence if requested.
To be honest, I find the part of the question that clients get tripped up on is the final part about “training package” requirements. It’s such a big topic that the client really does not know where to start. That is the problem with many of these questions. They have made the questions too big that would otherwise encourage a more immediate and succinct answer from the provider. For someone like me that lives and breathes this stuff every day, it’s easy-peasy but for the everyday training provider that is distracted by developing their business and providing learner support, the immediate answer to these questions is not front of mind. It is almost like they are deliberately complex. Sorry, I will try not to rant on in response to every question.
Question: Can you explain how you apply version control as part of your document management process?
Interpretation: This is a pretty reasonable question, and I don’t see anyone having problems with this one. It’s almost like one of the humans from the Dozen came up with this question, maybe from Tasmania. Tasmanians are such nice people. I should just be clear and make the point that there is no requirement in the standards for RTOs strictly for version control. I would love to see a non-compliance on version control go to the AAT and see how that plays out for ASQA. Notwithstanding that, obviously it’s good to have a system with version control. Generally, we denote minor changes using a decimal point such as 1.2, 1.3, et cetera and when we have a major change we might move to the next version completely such as 2.0. Having and maintaining a document register is also recommended.
This question is usually born from something that they have already identified, and they are trying to trip you up into admitting that you don’t apply a system of version control. As an example, maybe they have had a look at your continuous improvement register and identified that there was a recommended improvement regarding one of your training and assessment strategies. They compare this with the training and assessment strategy for that course that you have already provided, and it happens to be in version 1.0. You can see that the question is motivated from the fact that they realise there should have been a version change when the improvement was implemented, and they are trying to find out what system you have in place and determine why the version change didn’t happen. It all links back to governance. You might explain your version control arrangements in response to the question and then they ask “OK, thanks for explaining that. I was just to be confused about your version control arrangements because I noticed that in your continuous improvement register it identified some required updates to the training and assessment strategy but this training assessment strategy you have provided appears to be version one dated before this continuous improvement item. How do you explain that?” I suppose the moral to the story is that it is best practice to apply some type of formal version control with a document register and when you send documents to the national regulator, particularly make sure that these documents have the correct version number.
Question: Can you talk me through the process for developing and approving your training and assessment strategies?
Interpretation: I know, and you know that most RTOs do not have a documented policy and procedure around the development and approval of a training and assessment strategy. It usually goes something like this, “Hey Peter, can you contact Mary Blogs from XYZ age care facility and have a chat to her about what elective units of competency they are looking for and what their preferred arrangements are for work placement and put together a training and assessment strategy and have that on my desk by Friday please.“. Seriously, ASQA are dreaming. It is interesting to note that the draft RTO standards don’t even mention the requirement for a training and assessment strategy. I wonder if that will continue into the final document. I see some big public providers that do have a well-defined process for this and if you ask them, they will tell you that it absolutely bogs them down in bureaucracy just to get a training and assessment strategy approved. If you don’t have a documented process for the development of a training and assessment strategy, don’t worry because it is not a prescribed requirement within the standards. It only becomes a problem if your training and assessment strategy is non-compliant. Remember that we operate in an outcome based compliance model not a process driven compliance model. It is 100% sufficient for you to verbally describe the process that you apply that may not be documented but is well understood by all concerned and that involves suitable checks and balances to ensure that training and assessment strategies are developed appropriately.
Your answer might simply identify that the process normally begins with consultation with the client or industry to determine their training needs, these training needs are taken into consideration in the development of the first draft which is used for the basis for review and comment and further consultation with the client. After the consultation is taken into consideration and final updates are made to the document, the final document is produced and provided to the CEO for review and approval.
Question: How do you ensure that your training and assessment being delivered aligns with your training and assessment strategies?
Interpretation: This might sound like a straightforward question but, far out, I see clients just get bamboozled by this question. It’s like, they understand the question, but they really don’t know where to start to explain. The question is basically asking about how you monitor the delivery of training and assessment according to what the training and assessment strategy required. What is this talking about? It’s talking about how you monitor the scheduling of training in accordance with the planned course program, the provision of equipment and resources in accordance with the resource plan, the student’s attendance according to the planned scheduled activities, the alignment of learning and assessment resources with the unit requirements, the use of feedback collection and training evaluation to monitor the effectiveness of training, et cetera. If you are not familiar with training evaluation strategies, it would be worth having a read of the Kirkpatrick training evaluation model. This provides a good model for all training providers to ensure that the training being delivered aligns with your training and assessment strategies and is achieving the desired outcomes for the employer.
Question: How do you determine that the amount of training you are providing is sufficient for the target learner?
Interpretation: Seriously, this is a doozy of a question. I am confident that the brothers from the planet Zorgon had a hand in this question. Firstly, to answer this question you really need to be familiar with your training and assessment strategies and the amount of training that you have allocated together with things such as the target learner characteristics particularly any assumed prior knowledge and skills, course entry requirements, existing competency, the efficiency in the mode of delivery, et cetera. If none of these things make sense to you, read this past article the-amount-of-training-part-one. Fundamentally, you determine the amount of training for a course based on taking into considerations the number of learners in the cohort, the availability of resources, the characteristics of the target learner particularly prior knowledge and skills (their entry point), the training to be provided in relation to the number of units of competency, the unit complexity, the type of skills to be trained and practiced (practical / cognitive) sufficient to prepare the learner for assessment. Remember that learners need to develop and practice their skills prior to assessment. The primary focus is demonstrating through the provision of a detailed course program that learners will have sufficient opportunity to practice and develop their skills prior to assessment. If the auditor understands the fundamental of course design they will have undertaken their own time / space analysis based on the resources, the time allocated and the number of learners to determine if there is enough time allocated to skill development. Here is the thing, let’s say you have a learning activity that is allocated 30 minutes per person. You have enough resources for two learners to do the activity at the same time. You have 12 learners, so you allocate 6 hours to the activity. It makes sense that if you are doing this for learners to practice you would allow for practice on more than one occasion (so 12, 18, 24 hours). You see the point. You need to do a time space analysis based on all the considerations to determine if the learner is getting enough time to practice and develop their skills. The auditor has already done this and so when they ask the question, it is basically a loaded question. If you know the detail at this level, then you will have no problem answering this question. Also just keep in mind your arrangements for monitoring the sufficiency of the amount of training. You monitor the sufficiency of the amount of training by monitoring the learner participation in training, instances of reassessment, attendance, feedback from trainers, feedback from learners, ultimately feedback from employers.
This is another big question. One trick that I eluded to earlier is how to provide an initial answer to these big questions and then let the auditor ask another more specific question. As an example, in response to this question you might simply provide the answer “We take into consideration the needs of the target learners and also the requirements for the qualification to allocate a sufficient amount of training to allow the learners to develop their skills prior to assessment”. That’s it. What you are doing with a response like this is answering the question but now reverting it back to the auditor. They need to have properly listened to your answer (many don’t because they are too busy taking notes), interpret the answer and then ask the next logical question which generally will be narrower in scope such as something like, “OK, great can you tell me about what you are considering in the target learner when allocating the amount of training” or they may simply say “Ok, that is great” and move on because literally they don’t know what to ask next.
Remember that the ultimate consideration in determining how much training to allocate in a course is to allow sufficient time for the learner to practice and develop their skills with feedback from the trainer prior to being expected to demonstrate competency in assessment. The amount of time you allocate to this can be influenced by the pre-existing knowledge and skills of the target learner. If you look at your course and you cannot identify sufficient opportunities where learners can practice and develop their skills prior to assessment, then you probably have a problem.
Resourcing Questions
Question: How do you determine the resource requirements in support of a course?
Interpretation: This is a reasonably straightforward question. The only partially complex part of the question is the word “resource”. Some clients would immediately start talking about the learning and assessment documents they purchased. Resources involve much more than just those types of documents. We are talking about the equipment, the facilities, the number of trainers, the consumables together with things such as the number of learners in the cohort and the time allocated for training and assessment. Obviously of primary importance is the resource requirements of units of competency. These may be specified within the assessment conditions or be apparent as a requirement of the performance evidence requirement. In many units of competency, the assessment conditions are just hopeless so you really need to look at the tasks that the learners are performing and get a subject matter expert involved to determine what equipment and resources would be needed to perform these tasks. The immediate answer might be, “We undertake an analysis of the units of competency to identify the equipment and resource requirements and determine these requirements based on the number of learners on the course and the time allocated.”. The next question is probably going to ask for evidence of the identified resources such as an inventory list of resources in support of the course which I would encourage you to have. Don’t forget things such as work placement facilities, verifying on-the-job training resources, access to suitable resources in a simulated work setting including the knowledge infrastructure such as organisational policies and procedures, et cetera.
I suppose the take home point here is that you need to get into the detail. I see some clients wanting to put on scope commercial cookery, but they have no idea about the complexity and detail of that training package in relation to the equipment that is required. A client might want to deliver an online course in leadership and management, but where is the simulated workplace, the scenarios, case studies and organisational context coming from? A client might like to deliver their training at the client’s premises, but what is the equipment that you need to have on site in sufficient quantities and serviceable to support training? Make sure you get into the detail and have fully considered the resources required for the delivery of your courses. Provide the initial response and then respond to any subsequent questions as they come.
Question: How do you determine if a course has sufficient resources?
Interpretation: This is a similar question that we have had previously in regard to the monitoring arrangements that you have in place. How do you determine if a course has sufficient resources? By doing the planning upfront to determine the required amount of resources (see previous question) and monitoring the utilisation of resources to ensure that there is sufficient resources available to trainers and learners throughout the learning and assessment activities. OK, that is your initial response and then the next question is going to be, “how do you monitor the utilisation of resources?”. You might identify that your primary method of determining if the course has sufficient resource is engaging with trainers on a regular basis to determine how the training is going and getting their verbal feedback about sufficiency of the resources available. If you are delivering a course which has a high volume of consumables, you might have a process in place to order and restock these consumables on a regular basis which is worth talking about. If you are delivering on site training at the client’s premises, this is where you would talk about your process to verify (using a checklist) the resources available at the premises and their suitability in support of the training to be delivered. Obviously, as soon as you mentioned the word “checklist” you can be sure as eggs that the auditor will ask for examples of these. The answer to this question will vary based on your mode of delivery. Regardless of this, you just need to think about how you determine if resources are insufficient or low and how would you respond to this. Keep it basic and make sure you have evidence to back up whatever you claim.
Question: What process do you apply to validate and customise your learning and assessment resources?
Interpretation: The question is reasonably plain language and straightforward but, there is a motive behind the question that you need to understand and make sure that you address. The vast majority of training providers use commercial resources. Now, it would be lovely if all of these resources were fully compliant and magically customised for your mode of delivery but, you all know that this is never the case. All these resources are non-compliant to some degree. Taking them straight off the shelf and putting them in front of students and trainers without any validation or customisation is basically a recipe for disaster. You might get away with this for a while but at some stage it is going to catch up with you. This question is seeking to determine what your process is for pre-validation of the resources and how you customise these for your mode of delivery. If you do not do this, then I recommend simply being honest and letting the auditor know this. Maybe you had undertaken a review of a sample resource which you determined to be compliant and aligned with your delivery model and following this initial review you purchased the full package and implemented it without any further review. It is probably not the best response but at least it gives the impression that you did undertake some level of review. Best case, you explain that each resource was subject to a validation of the supplied mapping tool to confirm the coverage of the unit of competency by the assessment tasks. Where changes were required, these were updated in the supplied mapping documents. Maybe you had a sample of the resources externally reviewed with feedback and the outcomes of this external review were implemented across all assessment tools.
The resources were updated and customised for branding and customised for your local mode of delivery which required adjustment for delivery in an on the job training model (just an example). There is no perfect answer for this question other than simply explaining the process that you apply. Just be aware that I have had an auditor request the client provide a copy of the originally supplied commercial resources so they can compare these with the current ones in use to verify the claims made by the client about their customization. It is worth noting that pre assessment validation is not a current requirement within the standards. I agree that it is best practice, and it has been proposed to be included in the draft RTO standards, which I suspect it will.
Industry Engagement Questions
Question: Can you talk me through how you involve industry in the development of your training and assessment strategies?
Interpretation: You can see that these questions are really high minded and many go beyond the requirements of the standards. This question is associated with a requirements from the standards (clause 1.5 and 1.6) which require the training provider to ensure training and assessment strategies are relevant to the needs of industry. ASQA are taking it a step beyond that and suggesting that the industry needs to be “involved” in the development of the training assessment strategies. This is why most clients get stuck on this question. If the auditor had asked “Can you talk me through what strategies, you apply to engage with industry in the development of training and assessment strategies?” you can see how that question directly relates to the standards and most clients could answer that question. Instead, the client is trying to think of an instance where industry was “involved” in the development which generally they would not be. You just need to interpret this question in relation to industry engagement. Simply explain the process that you go through to engage with industry about their training needs and what information you gathered from industry in the development of your training and assessment strategies.
Remember that the standards require you to apply a range of strategies so this might include direct consultation, attending industry networking events, visiting industry work sites, conducting a feedback survey with industry, et cetera. It is good if you can have a couple of examples up your sleeve where your industry engagement has led to specific outcomes that you can point to in existing course offerings. This might include things like adjusting elective units based on a workplace requirement, using industry standard operating procedures to inform how assessment tasks are conducted, introducing industry forms into the learning and assessment process, et cetera. It is good to have these available and make sure that you have evidence to provide because as soon as you offer one of these examples, the auditor will ask you to provide that evidence. So don’t get distracted by the word “involvement”, just stick to the requirement of the standards which requires industry engagement.
Assessment Questions
Question: How do management ensure that the assessment being administered is compliant and supports the issuance of AQF certificates.
Interpretation: This is essentially a governance question. This is one of those questions that if you don’t think about the answer you are going to provide before the question is put to you then it would cause you to pause and try to understand the question better before you responded. Keep in mind that everything that happens within the organisation is the management’s responsibility. So, the question is really asking, what arrangements do you have in place to ensure that your assessment is compliant. Don’t look into it beyond that. When responding to these questions that have a governance focus, you need to be thinking very wide and not narrow in terms of actions that are taken but wide in terms of the systems that you have in place. As an example, you might have a process to undertake pre-assessment validation on assessment tools before they are implemented, you would have an arrangement for post-assessment validation as required by the standards, maybe you have implemented a program of professional development with assessors to moderate their assessment practices, you might have an assessment quality control arrangement that requires assessment to be verified before they are submitted to admin and then checked again before the outcomes are accepted. Lastly you might have a program of external audit to verify the compliance of assessment.
The key point here is you need to have controls in place that ensure any unit of competency issued to a learner is based on valid and compliant assessment. It is important to make sure that whatever arrangements you are explaining in response to the question that you are confident these have been applied an implemented and if requested you can provide evidence of this.
Question: How do you ensure that assessment meets the principles of assessment and the rules of evidence?
Interpretation: To be honest, this question really annoys me. When you read the question out it sounds pretty simple, but the reality is it is a very big question. I just wonder if anyone at ASQA considers this? I also can say with a fair degree of certainty that most of the auditors that I observe during these audits would be flat out actually rattling off the principles of assessment and the rules of evidence let alone having such an intimate knowledge of them as to understand the potential answer. A few weeks back I watched the auditor ask this very question and the client provide an answer something like “we validate our assessments to make sure they are compliant”. I am sitting there thinking to myself, “OK yep but there is obviously a lot more to it than just doing validation”. I am watching the client trying to think of something else to say and I am about to jump in when the auditor simply says “OK great” and moves on. I sat there just thinking to myself, far out, what a joke. Either the auditor just doesn’t understand the question they are asking or they really didn’t care about the answer anyway. I mean, why even ask the question unless you really want an answer that addresses the principles of assessment or the rules of evidence. This is one question that I think needs to go back to the Dozen to be reconsidered.
OK, now with my little rant out of the way, I recommend to clients that you break this question down into two parts:
-
- The principles of assessment primarily relate to the way assessment is conducted or the assessment process. We have designed the assessment based on the unit of competency and workplace requirements to make sure it is valid. We have developed marking guides and benchmarking to make sure it is reliable. We have established detailed assessment procedures and instructions Including arrangements to prevent plagiarism, opportunities for appeal, mechanisms for reasonable adjustment to ensure that the assessment is fair and flexible, et cetera. So, you can see how I have responded to the first part of the question which deals with the principles of assessment.
- The rules of evidence really focus on the quality of the evidence that you are gathering in the assessment process. I would respond by saying that we collect evidence of the students work relevant to the unit of competency to ensure that the evidence is valid. We either observe the student produce this work to ensure its authenticity or we have in place arrangements to authenticate the evidence such as mandatory referencing, authenticity declarations and plagiarism detection. We have designed the assessment to collect sufficient evidence based on the unit of competency requirements on the required number of occasions covering all unit requirements. Lastly, we typically make the assessment decision close to the collection of the assessment evidence is collected either at the time or in the recent past to ensure the evidence is current.
That is the answer that I would provide but again, I really don’t understand the purpose of the question. It’s almost like it is a knowledge assessment. If they are really interested in the way that you are undertaking assessment and have observed something in your assessment tools that they are concerned about, such as, there is no marking guide, you would think that they would ask a much more targeted question such as “After having a look through your assessments, I just wanted to understand a bit more about how you ensure reliability in your assessment decision making. Can you tell me how you ensure reliable assessment”. That is a great question and it’s much more targeted to a particular area of interest in the assessment process and it’s something that the client can respond to. My gut feeling is that the quality of knowledge and understanding of training design and competency based training and assessment in the current flock of auditors is so poor that they have needed to write these questions out for them so that they are simply working off a script like a customer call centre. I guess from your perspective, you just need to make sure that you fully understand the complexities of the principles of assessment and rules of evidence. I would break it down into two parts like I have suggested because I think it makes more sense.
Question: Can you talk me through your arrangements to verify the adequacy assessment before the issuance of competency.
Interpretation: This question is about your assessment quality controls that you have in place that prevent an assessment from being entered into your student management system as competent without first verifying that the assessment is compliant and meets the requirements of the training product. There is a great webinar on assessment quality control on our website if you are interested. The question essentially relates to clause 3.1 which requires that the RTO only issues competency outcomes to learners it has assessed as meeting the requirements of the training product. It is a clause that is essentially linked to clause 1.8 which relates to assessment. It is about the assessment practices employed by your assessors and the internal capability within your organisation to identify where these practices are inadequate to rectify these before issuing the competency. Let’s just consider an example. Let’s say that the student is plagiarising their response to knowledge questions from the learner guide word for word. The assessor is lazy and simply drones their way through the assessment marking process and ticks these activities off as satisfactory without any consideration of the plagiarism that has occurred. Every student record is the same and so it appears that all of the students have all simply transcribed the content from the learner guide into the written response knowledge assessment. This is plagiarism 101 and the organisation needs to prevent this. The assessor did some Mickey Mouse TAE course and takes no pride in their work (can you believe that you are paying this guy $65 per hour!!).
Now, how do you identify this systemic plagiarism before these assessments are passed through to the admin team where the outcomes are updated in the student management system? You need some type of systematic checking or intervention that either checks all these assessment records before they are accepted or at least takes a sampling approach to identify where the assessment is not adequate. Keep in mind that this might need to be conducted in a couple of different ways because, it’s difficult to put this burden on the admin team alone. The admin team do not necessarily have the competency or expertise in assessment to identify when the evidence does not meet the rules of evidence. The admin team can check for things like if the assessment is complete, if the assessment is signed, dated, did the assessor record sufficient comments and observations. These are reasonable things that the admin team can check. But it is probably a bit beyond the expectation that they should be expected to detect plagiarism or to interpret assessment evidence. So, you can see in that situation you would need something else in the mix such as some type of assessment moderation process conducted by someone qualified in assessment that either looks at all of the assessments before they are accepted or at least looks at a sample.
I would also just finish by saying that your systems and processes that enable adequate assessment to occur begin way before the final quality control. If I was answering this question, I would say that our confidence in the adequacy of the assessment began when the assessment was first designed to ensure that it meets the principles of assessment and this was verified through assessment mapping and through pre assessment validation. The qualification was subject to post assessment validation where the opportunities for improvement identified through that process were applied to all the unit assessments within that course. We undertake regular professional development with assessors to ensure that their assessment practices are leading to the collection of evidence in accordance with the rules of evidence. This includes assessment moderation to ensure that all assessors are assessing to the same standards. Lastly, we apply a system of assessment quality control where the assessor themselves needs to complete a checklist to confirm that the assessment has been completed appropriately before this is submitted for the reporting of results. The assessment then goes through a final assessment quality control conducted by the administration team before the results are entered and the record is stored. Yadda yadda yadda. I think what this shows is that there is an entire assessment system that involves people and process that all needs to come together for the assessment to be adequate. When you are responding to this question, you need to look at it from a systems perspective.
Conclusion
I decided to break this article up into three parts primarily because of the number of questions as it otherwise just becomes too big. In part 2 there are about another 22 questions that cover areas of the standards relating to trainers and assessors, continuous improvement, and governance. I look forward to bringing you this additional information on Speaking ASQAneese – Part 2.
Good training,
Joe Newbery
Published: 8th June 2023
Copyright © Newbery Consulting 2023. All rights reserved.
VET News – 8th June 2023
|
VET News – 11th May 2023
|
VET News – 13th April 2023
|
VET News – 13th March 2023
|
Guide to ASQA Audit Process
Guide to ASQA Audit Process
For about the last two years, ASQA has dramatically changed the way that it undertakes their audits of providers. They now call it a “performance assessment” which in my view is just an extension of woke madness where we try and soften things up to make people feel better about the process. Let’s just be real, it is an audit, the NVR Act calls it an “Audit”, it is an audit.
The regulator explains its new approach to “performance assessment” at its website. I have to say that the information on the process is so generic and high level that it really is not useful. What it doesn’t tell you is what evidence will be requested, when it is requested, what questions will be asked and what other information they are accessing on your operation behind the scenes. Since the commencement of the new process, I have been involved in supporting clients through the audit process from helping clients prepare and engage in the audit, attending audit meetings with ASQA, respond to audit findings, and generally providing advice on the evidence being presented. My overall impression is very positive. Having been involved in VET compliance and quality auditing since 2007, I have just about seen it all. I think the new approach is very good. It is generally a very friendly and relaxed process. The evidence is requested in trenches, so it spreads the workload over a longer period which makes it more manageable for the RTO. There are a series of meetings (videoconference) throughout the process to allow the auditor to better understand the RTO operation. The whole audit is conducted remotely which is great. The timelines for requesting evidence are generous (usually). Overall, I really like it and congratulate ASQA on the model. I would observe that the auditors all seem much younger these days!
Ok, before you conclude that this all sounds wonderful and maybe ASQA are more flexible or there is less scrutiny, stop right there! Whilst it is more friendly and engaging, I think the level of scrutiny is now much more complex to what it was back in, say 2017. This is particularly true for the team that handle the renewal of registration audits. They don’t just look at one piece of evidence in isolation. They connect the lines between items of evidence and how it links with and informs all other aspects of your operation and compliance. I love it. It is a real systemic focus and reinforces the need for a systems approach to managing the RTO and governance. This is important, so if you are fading right now, snap back, and focus on the next point. I just want to give you an example.
Let’s say that the auditor reviews your training and assessment strategy, and they notice that assessment methods allocated to a unit seem to be very “written response based” and there is no obvious practical assessment. This tweaks their interest in the assessment for that unit. So, they include the unit in the sample. They review the assessment tools and confirm that the assessment is not valid. They review the student assessment records and find that there is insufficient valid performance evidence and the student’s responses have been plagiarised from the textbook. They review your assessment validation arrangements and discover that your validation process is not identifying these problems. They cross-check this with your continuous improvement records and see insufficient improvement actions on assessment systems and poor follow through on continuous improvement actions. They link the invalid assessment with you AQF certificate issuance records and confirm that you have issued competency without undertaking adequate assessment, yadda, yadda, yadda. We now have non-compliance across clauses 1.1, 1.8, 1.9, 2.2, 3.1, etc. The key point here is, it is all connected. Some auditors are better at this than other. But, overall it is a very detailed process. ASQA may not be doing as many audits as compared to the past, but the audits they are undertaking are very thorough. I tell you this so you can take note and get your house in order well in advance of a future audit.
Preparing for audit
Do we need to prepare for an audit or should we always be ready? ASQA have a belief that you should always be fully compliant and “preparing for a performance assessment (audit) is not necessary”. They actually say this on their website! It comes from a mindset that recognises that, if you have established your compliance operating system and are diligently implementing this and monitoring the delivery of services closely, then why shouldn’t you be compliant? Those that may have read our article on a systems approach to RTO self-assurance, may recall that I promote a similar concept that “being self-assured means that we can have confidence in the whole business with quality service delivery as the primary objective and compliance is achieved as a consequence”. I do strongly believe this, but I also need to work with clients in the real world. Do we need to systematically prepare for the audit, yes!
In the next section of this article, I will explain what you can expect during a renewal of registration audit with ASQA, what evidence they will request, what questions they may ask, etc. This information is based on our involvement in many audits under this new process where we see slightly different approaches being taken by different auditors based on the risk assessment of the provider. The information I am presenting below is at the higher risk level so if you prepare according to this, you will be going ok.
ASQA undertake the audit according to the following standard process:
1. The Initial contact
The auditor will make contact generally by phone initially to introduce themselves and organise a time for the opening meeting. They will explain the process for issuing a notice of performance assessment and the request for the initial information. If they are unable to reach you by phone, you can expect an email. ASQA get really annoyed when they cannot get in contact with you so it is a good idea to add their domain to your safe sender list and make sure your contact details in ASQAnet are always up to date.
2. Notice of Performance Assessment and Request for Delivery Data
The following day (generally), they will send a notice of performance assessment via email nominating a time for the opening meeting and an attached request for information. The request for information includes the Delivery data request as outlined below. This initial information request is usually required within a week or so and a few days before the opening meeting.
Example Delivery Data Request
1. Using the Delivery Data and Student Survey Data template:
-
- include a summary of enrolments and completions for the previous 12 months using the ‘Delivery Data Summary’ tab
- include details for students who have enrolled and/or completed any training product in the past 12 months using the ‘Student Survey Data’ tab. This is to include student name, email address and mobile phone number, the code and name of the training product they are enrolled in and their enrolment and completion date
- include a detailed listing of unit of competency enrolments and completions for the previous 6 months using the ‘Enrolment and completion data’ tab. Please do not substitute or provide your data in a different format
2. Provide the following information relevant to your organisation:
-
- summary of provider and management structure including a copy of your organisation chart (including all staff names, their roles and employment status)
- suburb and state of all delivery locations
- core clients/target groups for each training product
- training revenue (funded, fee for service, etc.)
- the location (address) where your student records are retained
- if student records are retained electronically or in hardcopy
- list of all trainers and assessors and the training products they deliver for all items on your scope of registration
- whether RPL has been conducted in the last 12 months
3. Provide the following information relevant to your third-party arrangements (if applicable):
-
- a list of third parties and the services they provide on your behalf
3. The Opening meeting
Following their review of the delivery data request, there will be an opening meeting for the audit. This meeting is just an introduction to explain the legislative requirement that underpins the audit, to explain the audit process, the possible outcomes and relevant regulatory implications. The auditor may ask some general questions based on the initial information that you have already provided. These questions can vary greatly but typically they relate to the delivery data summary, access to records, third party arrangements, delivery locations, clarify funding or fee payment sources, etc.
4. Request for Training and Assessment Documentation
Following the opening meeting, you will receive another email this time notifying you of the scope of the audit to be undertaken. It will nominate a time and date for the management meeting and will also include the Training and Assessment Documentation Request as detailed below. You will usually get a couple of weeks to supply the requested training and assessment documentation. The management meeting is usually scheduled a couple of weeks after they have received the training and assessment documentation.
Example Training and Assessment Documentation Request
1. Provide the training and assessment strategy documents and supporting documents for the nominated sample training products. For example:
-
- policies and procedures that support you to ensure that the training and assessment delivered aligns with the requirements of the standards
- details for the delivery of training and assessment for each training product. For example:
- where the delivery/assessment will occur
- topics delivered in each session and the time frames for each session
- relevant resources, equipment, etc. required for each session
- assessment task and due date of assessment
- when work placement will occur
- equipment register/ resources checklist.
- timetables for scheduled classes
- any documents or Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that reflect workplace agreements.
2. Provide evidence of industry engagement within the last 12 months. For example:
-
- policies and procedures relating to industry engagement.
- evidence of industry engagement such as surveys, correspondence and/or meeting minutes.
3. Provide evidence of assessment validation arrangements. For example:
-
- policies and procedures relating to validation.
- validation plan/ schedule if not included in the policy/procedure.
4. Provide evidence of your assessment system including for the nominated sample training products.
-
- student assessment instructions
- assessor assessment instructions
- all materials used to make a judgment of competency for the students. For example:
- assessment tools/material
- RPL assessment tools
- assessor marking guide
- any other supporting assessment documents such as third-party reports or work placement records (if applicable)
- assessment mapping tool (if applicable)
5. Provide evidence of trainer and assessor records that describe how trainers and assessors meet the requirements in relation to the units of competency they deliver. For example:
-
- policies and procedures relating to professional development of trainers and assessors
- training and assessor matrix (if applicable) listing each trainer/assessors competencies at unit of competency level against all training products they deliver and assess
- copies of vocational qualifications/certificates
- copies of trainer/assessor qualification/s specific to training and assessment
- evidence of vocational currency
- professional development records relevant to:
- the training being delivered and assessed, with supporting evidence
- knowledge and practice in the vocational industry and competency-based training and assessment.
6. Provide evidence of marketing and enrolment documents for the nominated sample training products. For example:
-
- policies and procedures (internal and for third parties if applicable) that support your organisation to ensure the accuracy of marketing and enrolment documents
- marketing material other than website
- course flyers
- student handbook (if applicable)
- fee information
- entry requirements (if applicable)
- course details
- items to be provided by the students (if applicable)
- application/enrolment forms template (including interview templates)
- entry/ LLN test template and marking guides
- any marketing or enrolment materials used by third parties if different to those provided above.
7. Provide evidence of Governance documents. For example:
-
- policies and procedures relating to organisational governance including complaints and continuous improvement
- continuous improvement register
- evidence of continuous improvement such as analysis of feedback and implementation.
- complaints and appeals register
- certificate issuance register
8. Provide evidence of third-party documents:
-
- a copy of current Third-Party agreements for nominated sample third parties
- evidence to confirm monitoring of these third parties as per the agreement/s has been undertaken for the following third parties:
9. Provide evidence of the following CRICOS arrangements:
-
- documented policy and procedure for assessing English language proficiency, educational qualifications and/or work experience of students
- information provided to students at the orientation program
- information provided to students on progress and attendance requirements
- policies and procedures for monitoring and managing progress and attendance
- pre-enrolment information for students, for example, a Student Handbook/Prospectus
- student written agreement template
- letter of offer template
- evidence of support services available to students
- name/s of the designated student support personnel
- the name of the official point of contact for students
5. The Management Meeting
The management meeting can often be scheduled over a two to three hour timeframe and will involve your management team and high managerial agents. I would strongly suggest that the owners of the business participate. You don’t necessarily need to have trainers involved in this meeting as the auditor is likely to want to interview a sample of the trainers separately. Keep in mind that by this stage they have reviewed all of the evidence that you have provided so far including the delivery activity summary, organisation overview and all of the documents outlined in the training and assessment documents detailed above. They have already administered a survey to your students and received feedback in response to the survey questions, they have looked at Google reviews and any other available information on your business that is online including social media. If you have a funding contract, they may have received information about your contract performance from the relevant funding authority. If you are a CRICOS provider, they have fully interrogated PRISMS to review your management of COEs, capacity at each delivery site and third party education agents. The point is, they turn up for this meeting prepared and have completed not only a review of the evidence you have provided but have undertaken a comprehensive market scan and have engaged with your students to gather feedback about what they think about your delivery of services. They will have lots of notes already recorded based on all this research and lots of questions ready to ask.
It is not uncommon that there will be two auditors in this meeting with one leading and one assisting and in some meetings that I have participated in there has been a person in the background taking minutes. They seem to do this on higher risk audits. I suggest you do the same. Whilst you are not allowed to record the meeting, you can have a person present who can record detailed notes on everything that is said. I have observed auditors say the dumbest things, behave inappropriately, deliberately try and trick the client up with confusing questioning, bully the client through intimidation and commonly make personal, subjective observations/findings that they cannot justify according to what the standards or the legislation actually says and requires. We recently had an auditor that made a finding that directly contradicts the ASQA published “Guidance for Providers” on the resourcing requirements for applicants seeking initial registration or change to scope of registration. If I see any of this type of behaviour happen during an audit, I call it out and hold the auditor accountable. Don’t let this behaviour just slide by with them thinking that you either acknowledge or agree with their observations, because if you do; that is the way it will be written up in the report. I say to clients from time to time that “ASQA is not your friend”. I know, this sounds harsh, but when I hear a client tell me they have a good “relationship” with ASQA, it is just bollocks. ASQA is a statutory authority, and it does not matter who you are, if you are not doing it right and do not rectify, they will suspend your registration without the slightest of remorse. If you have any notion that you have a good “relationship” with ASQA or think they hold you in high regard, forget this, it is fanciful. As lovely and friendly as some of the auditors are, they are a government agency that should be held accountable. If you don’t speak up and defend your operation and compliance, they will roll over the top of you, so speak up and make sure you have someone taking detailed notes on everything that is said.
The questions that you are asked in this meeting will relate to the evidence that you have already provided and any points of clarification that the auditor has. They will also ask you a multitude of questions about how your RTO operates with a general focus on governance. The expectation of governance in this audit is huge. This is important so before we jump into some of the sample questions, I just want to highlight the importance of governance. ASQA expect that you have an established system of policy and procedures that include appropriate quality assurance arrangements. They expect the CEO to be fully engaged in the implementation and monitoring of the RTO operation to ensure compliance. The CEO and senior management need to have a detailed knowledge of the entire operation and of the compliance requirements. Ignorance or apathy are not an option if you want to hang on to your RTO registration.
To understand how governance is implemented, it is useful to look at just one example of how this is applied. Let’s take assessment. After you have selected a unit of competency based on your industry consultation, the assessment tool should be designed and developed and then validated in a process of pre assessment validation before it is implemented. There should be records of this and the industry consultation that informed the assessment design. When the assessment is implemented, there should be process of introducing the assessment to trainers and assessors to make sure they are all fully informed about how the assessment should be applied. There should be evidence of this. Once the assessment has been implemented, there should be a process of conducting assessment quality control to ensure that only adequate assessment is being accepted to inform student results. There should be a process and evidence of this. Assessment should be subject to assessment validation which should identify where the assessment is not fit for purpose or compliant. There should be evidence of this. Remember that findings that resulted from assessment validation relate only to a sample of the units of competency and therefore these findings should be applied not only to the sample units but to all of the units of competency relating to that course and potentially even wider. There should be evidence of this. There should be a clear connection between processes such as assessment quality control, pre assessment validation, post assessment validation with your continuous improvement process. If there is a breakdown in any of these processes, then it is the CEO’s fault because they should have put arrangements in place to monitor the implementation of these arrangements to make sure they were working. I know this sounds harsh but at the end of the day, the CEO is the person responsible. That’s what the legislation says. When we do root cause analysis following one of these major non-compliances, it always results in identifying that there was a lack of oversight and management to ensure the implementation of appropriate arrangements. Sure, you can blame middle management because maybe they weren’t doing the job that they were being paid to do but at the end of the day, the CEO should have identified this problem earlier and done something about it. Governance, it is a big focus in these audits, and it needs to be your focus.
Here are just a sample of questions that you may be asked:
- How do management ensure that training assessment is meeting the needs of the training package?
- Can you explain how you apply version control as part of your document management process?
- Can you talk me through the process for developing and approving your training and assessment strategies?
- How do you ensure that your training and assessment being delivered (practices) aligns with your training and assessment strategies?
- How do you determine that the amount of training you are providing is sufficient for the target learner?
- Can you talk me through how you involve industry in the development of your training and assessment strategies?
- Can you talk me through the process for recruiting your trainers and assessors.
- How do you verify the competency and currency of your trainers and assessors?
- How do you ensure that trainers maintain their competency and currency?
- How do you determine the resource requirements in support of a course?
- How do you determine if a course has sufficient resourcing?
- What process do you apply to validate and customise your learning and assessment resources?
- How do management ensure that the assessment being administered is compliant and supports the issuance of AQF certificates.
- Can you talk me through your arrangements to verify the adequacy assessment before the issuance of competency.
- How do you determine if students require support services?
- How do you monitor the need for support services during the student’s enrollment?
- What controls do you have in place to verify the compliance of marketing materials before these are relied on?
- Can you talk me through your arrangements to apply continuous improvement to your training and assessment.
- What data and information do you collect to monitor the quality and compliance of training and assessment?
- Can you talk me through the process for commencing and ceasing third party arrangements.
- What monitoring arrangements are you applying to monitor the services being delivered by third parties on your behalf?
These questions are just a sample of what I have observed during these management meetings. One important point I would make is this, they are taking notes of everything you say. I have lost count of the number of times I have seen in an audit report where the auditor observes that the policy document said one thing and the compliance manager, or the CEO explained a different process during the management meeting. That’s why before the management meeting I would encourage you to make sure you are familiar with your arrangements and compare these with your practices. Allocate some time to prepare how you are going to respond to these types of questions.
6. Request for Practice Documentation
Following the management meeting, you will receive the final request for evidence which is the Practice Documentation Request detailed below. The final request focuses on evidence of your implementation of arrangements. As an example, in the previous request for information they requested evidence of your assessment validation procedure and plan. In this final request they want to see evidence of your implementation of assessment validation such as your validation records. In the previous request, they requested evidence of a sample of assessment tools. In this final request they want to see evidence of your implementation of these assessments in a sample of student assessment records. You are usually provided a couple of weeks to gather and submit this evidence.
Example Practice Documentation Request
1. Provide evidence of the facilities/equipment in support of the delivery of the nominated sample training products.
-
- list of physical resources/equipment (if applicable)
- add photos/videos of relevant facilities and equipment (if applicable)
2. Provide evidence of the learning resources for the nominated sample training products.
-
- a breakdown of the learning resources, including a resource mapping tool (if available) for each unit of competency. For example:
- student workbook/learning resource (hardcopy or online)
- trainer notes
- PowerPoints
- handouts.
- electronic copy of resources or details of purchased resources including version number where resources cannot be sent electronically
- login details for assessors to access online platforms (if applicable)
- a breakdown of the learning resources, including a resource mapping tool (if available) for each unit of competency. For example:
3. Provide evidence of the student assessment records for nominated sample students.
-
- completed student assessment records with all assessment evidence relied on to form the assessor’s judgement of student competency (including RPL, if applicable) and the corresponding assessment tools and marking guide/s (if different to those described above)
- written instructions on how to access any student files held on an online platform including login details (if applicable)
- completed work placement agreements (if applicable)
- AQF certification (if applicable)
4. Provide evidence of the student enrolment records for nominated sampled students including:
-
- Enrolment application forms
- entry/ LLN tests
- correspondence between you and the student
- agreement to terms and conditions of enrolment
5. Provide evidence of assessment validation records. For example:
-
- evidence of validation. For example:
- meeting minutes
- validation forms
- any other assessment instruments used in validation activities.
- evidence of validation. For example:
6. Provide the evidence of the implementation of CRICOS arrangements, including:
-
- Records of attendance for the sampled students detailed below (last 6 months)
- Records of monitoring and managing progress for the sampled students detailed below
- Letter of offer for the sampled students detailed below
- Student written agreement for the sampled students detailed below
- Evidence of support services for the sampled students detailed below (where applicable)
- Evidence of fee payments for the sampled students detailed below
- Evidence of SCVs issued for the sampled students detailed below (where applicable)
I should just make the point that there can be alternatives to the above practice documentation request where the auditor may also request evidence on potential gaps in compliance they have identified from the review of the training and assessment documentation. An example of this might include nominating a particular trainer where vocational competency has not been clearly demonstrated and requesting additional evidence relating to a sample unit to verify vocational competency or currency. This has become more common. Another example might include where they request evidence of your rationale for the amount of training being provided in a particular course where they may have identified that the amount of training being delivered is insufficient. These types of targeted requests are actually a good thing for the training provider. It says that the auditor has identified a potential issue and they are requesting very specific evidence to allow the provider to address the issue before it becomes a non-compliance at the closing meeting. This does not always happen and seems to be auditor specific and from my perspective is an indication of the auditor’s level of attention to detail and good audit practice. Keep an eye out for these very targeted requests.
7. The Closing meeting
Following the auditor’s review of this final evidence, a closing meeting is scheduled where the auditor will talk through any significant findings and explain the process from this point. This can include identifying areas of non-compliance and identifying minor discrepancies which are communicated so that the RTO can address these. If there are non-compliances and following the issuance of an audit report, the audit will be handed over to a different compliance team who will administer any further follow up action which may include providing further evidence to address non-compliance, conducting a review of decision, entering into an agreement to rectify, or providing a response prior to ASQA making a decision such as suspension or cancelation of registration. Make sure that you take detailed notes during the closing meeting because it is often the case that preliminary findings which are communicated may vary greatly with what is recorded in the audit report.
Conclusion
Too often I have RTOs that contact me once they have received a report with one of these serious non-compliance outcomes. Sometimes these might be previous clients that we have not heard from in a while, sometimes these are completely new clients that have been referred to us. Whoever they are, I always wish they had contacted me 12 months ago so we could have helped them to properly prepare for the audit to prevent these issues from ever happening. I recommend that you start your preparation at least 18 months out from the date your registration is due to end. Remember that you need to submit your application to renew the RTO registration 90 days before the registration end date. It is critical not to miss this deadline. The application is available to submit on ASQAnet six months prior to the registration end date. I encourage you to use the information in this article to prepare your documentation and undertake your own self-assessment to ensure that you have the evidence in your practices to back up your strategies. Organise this information into a shared folder and when the national regulator requests the information, you should only need to update the information based on the request. Remember that the request that you receive may vary to the above examples based on the risk assessment of your RTO. We still get clients that have their RTO registration approved without an audit, but this is definitely not something that I would plan on happening.
Good training,
Joe Newbery
Published: 12th April 2023
Copyright © Newbery Consulting 2023. All rights reserved.
VET News – 28th February 2023
|
Perceptions and Status of VET Inquiry
Inquiry into the Perceptions and Status of Vocational Education and Training
On 30 November 2022, the Minister for Skills and Training, the Hon Brendan O’Connor MP, referred the House Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training to commence an inquiry into the perceptions and status of vocational education and training.
We made our submission on the 27th February 2023. Some of the key points we made in our submission included:
- We presented evidence and information on the inadequacy of government sponsored information available on VET qualifications online. We pointed out where this information is inaccurate or out of date and provided some suggestions about how the government could be implementing strategies to compete for relevance in internet search engine results.
- We provided feedback about the absence of adequate career pathway information relevant to VET qualifications. We identified where this information is currently either inadequate or in many cases is biased toward higher-ed qualifications. We also proposed changes to the way we are communicating career pathway information to young people to present VET options that are proven to result in a shorter training time, at a lower cost and leading to more immediate employment outcomes with higher pay then higher-ed alternatives.
- We presented information about how government messaging presenting private VET providers as “exploitative profiteers” is undermining public confidence in vocational education training and damaging the perceptions and status of VET. We also recommended changes to the way government refer to VET providers in the media to reflect the diversity of the VET sector, not simply TAFE.
- We provided feedback on the confusion that is created by the university self-accredited Diplomas and Advanced Diplomas that are often directly competing with nationally endorsed qualifications. We pointed out the disadvantages of these self-accredited qualifications including the high cost and lack of portability. We have recommended that higher-ed providers should be restricted to delivering AQF levels 7-10 only (bachelor degree to doctoral degree) qualifications.
- We recommended reforms to the way VET is funded through the national skills agreement to trial a program where employers are provided access to a “skills voucher” which would allow them to engage a provider of their choice to develop and implement training partnerships between VET providers and industry.
- We provided feedback on the often aggressive and direct unsolicited marketing practices by some tertiary education and training providers to secondary school students including the distribution of “early offers”. We have recommended prohibiting any tertiary education and training providers from direct and unsolicited marketing to persons who are secondary school students and reforms to the rules relating to the career guidance information being provided to secondary school students to ensure this information is independent and free from any commercial bias or conflict of interest.
- We have provided some observations about the “Fee Free TAFE” program about its likely consequence in devaluing VET qualifications and leading to much higher non-completion rates in addition to students who are not committed to the course they are entering. We have recommended that student need to contribute even a modest fee toward their tuition to give them some “skin in the game”.
- We provided observations and suggestions to the commitee on many more issues and topics which you can read in the full submission available from the link below.
Our submission can be downloaded from the inquiry website at the following link.
The link to the inquiry home page is below.
Good training,
Joe Newbery
Published: 27th February 2023
VET News – 2nd February 2023
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
VET News – 19th January 2023
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RTO Standards Review – Our Feedback
RTO Standards Review – Our Feedback
Introduction
On 27th October 2022, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations released the draft revised RTO Standards for review and invited feedback. The Department is seeking feedback by the 31st January 2023 (in only 12 days from the publication of this article). The Department have provided an online survey to capture this feedback and have provided the following document for review to inform the feedback:
DEWR Draft RTO Standards Consultation Paper Oct 2022 (Click)
These are my seventh Standards for RTOs that I have watched emerge for comment on their way to endorsement since 1996. I have reviewed the consultation paper they have supplied to inform this feedback which includes all of the relevant documents. Overall, I am fairly positive. If there are standards or sections here that I have not commented on, it is because I really had no comment to make. I would say that represents the majority. Noting that, there are important issues in these draft standards that need to be addressed before they are finalised and hopefully with our collective feedback we can get some improvements. What I have provided below is the feedback that I provided in the little comment boxes that they provide in the online survey to capture the feedback.
One thing that I want to highlight about these revised standards is, this is not just a change in the wording of the standards. This is a restructure of the regulatory requirements that consolidates not only the standards and some legislative instruments but also some previous general directions into a revised standard. It is important to note that you are not just providing feedback on the standards. The proposed structure includes:
- The Standards for RTOs – these contain outcome-focused requirements that go to the heart of quality training delivery.
- Guidelines – these are referenced in the Standards and outline the credentialling requirements for those delivering training and assessment and identify specified training products that are subject to additional validation requirements.
- Compliance-based requirements – these are important administrative requirements that must be met by RTOs to maintain registration.
It is important to provide feedback? Yes it is. These opportunities only come around about every 3-4 years, so take the opportunity to have your voice. I invite you to review the feedback that I provided and if you agree, I invite you to use these points to inform your own feedback. Do not miss this opportunity to influence the final standards that govern the regulation of our training industry. Responding to this survey will take you about 30-40 minutes. Take this time to contribute to the development of your VET sector. Please consider the following points in your review of the draft standards.
Concern about the prescription in the draft standards
I think the move toward less prescription makes the interpretation of the standards and requirements more variable and this is likely to result in more subjective interpretation by regulatory assessors. This will create unnecessary non-compliance and uncertainty in providers. I think that providers actually just want to know what the standard is and so, more prescription was required not less.
Suggestion about the structure of the draft standards
Training product transition seems to have a foot in both camps (the Standards and the Compliance Requirements). I would put transition requirements completely into the current compliance based requirements. I also don’t think that credit transfer needs to be within the standards. Putting it alongside RPL is part of the reason why people get confused about RPL being assessment process. Leave that section to training and assessment only and remove credit transfer which is an administrative process and put it in the compliance based requirements.
I think you need to change the name of the “compliance based requirements” document. Isn’t all of it a “compliance based requirement”? I can see this creating unnecessary confusion. Maybe something like “RTO administrative obligations” or something like that that doesn’t give the impression that it is more or less important than the standards.
Feedback on the Draft Standards
Proposed Clause: 1.1.1 Training design and practice is consistent with the training product, relevant to the needs of industry and appropriate to enable learners to achieve training outcomes.
Comment: 1.1.1. I think this clause needs to reinforce the requirement that training is intended to prepare learners for assessment. Too often we see providers requiring students to move straight to the assessment without training because it is more convenient and cost effective for the provider. I would recommend a change to the final part of the sentence to say “to enable learners to adequately prepare for assessment and achieve training outcomes”. At the end of the day, training packages only specify assessment requirements not training outcomes or training requirements. Unless you are going to overhaul units of competency to specify a training outcomes, you need to link and reinforce the connection between a training pathway leading to assessment.
Proposed Clause: 1.2.2 a. Assessment is conducted in a way that is consistent with the following principles of assessment:
a) fair – taking into account the learner’s needs, applying reasonable adjustments where appropriate and enabling reassessment if necessary,
Comment: 1.2.2 a. This clause needs to include a reference to informing learners of the requirements for assessment. The assessment is not fair if the learner does not understand what to do and the current clause focuses more on learning support and reasonable adjustments. It needs to include the requirement for the provider to provide adequate assessment instructions by informing the learner about the assessment requirements.
Proposed Clause: 1.2.2 c. Assessment is conducted in a way that is consistent with the following principles of assessment: c) valid – such that assessment of skills and knowledge is integrated with practical application and could enable the learner to demonstrate these skills and knowledge in similar situations,
Comment: 1.2.2 c. This clause needs to require that the assessment addresses the requirements of the training product. If we do not mandate that for the assessment to be valid it needs to address the requirements of the training product then, why have a training product? I suggest it be changed to “such that assessment of skills and knowledge is integrated with practical application and could enable the learner to demonstrate these skills and knowledge in similar situations in accordance with the requirements of the training product”.
Proposed Clause: 1.2.3. Assessors make individual assessment judgements that are justified based on the following rules of evidence:
Comment: 1.2.3. It is incredulous to me that you thought it was appropriate to remove validity as a rule of evidence because some people do not understand it! You are essentially lowering the bar to meet the very poor standard of delivery of TAE training products. Clause 1.2.3 needs to include validity as a rule of evidence. Don’t try and fix something that isn’t broken. It’s not enough that validity is a principle of assessment. All this means is that the assessment task is valid. The assessment task can be valid but that doesn’t mean that the provider is going to collect and assess evidence of that task being performed. Without validity as a rule of evidence there is no requirement on the provider to collect evidence that relates to the student’s performance. This would have to be one of the stupidest ideas I have ever heard of. Re-include validity as a rule of evidence.
Proposed Clause: 1.3.1. Facilities, resources (including online resources) and equipment for each training product are safe, accessible, sufficient and fit-for-purpose.
Comment: 1.3.1. This clause needs to include a reference back to the providers training design. It is not enough for it to simply require learning resources in support of the training product. It also needs to specify the requirement for the learning resources to complement the providers specified training design (1.1.1). This addresses situations where provider claims to deliver certain activities as part of its amount of training but then does not have the learning resources to back it up. I would recommend a change to “1.3.1. Facilities, resources (including online resources) and equipment for each training product are safe, accessible, sufficient and fit-for-purpose and support the delivery of the training design and assessment systems.
Proposed Clause: 1.4.1. Where learners identify as having prior skills, knowledge, and experience relevant to the training product, recognition of prior learning is undertaken in accordance with the assessment system.
Comment: 1.4.1. I think this makes a requirement that is currently clear and definitive, unclear. The current requirement clearly makes it compulsory for the provider to offer RPL. No question. Was it your intent with this change of language to introduce the option for the provider to only provide RPL where the learner particularly identifies as having prior knowledge and skills? It provides a level of discretion to the provider about whether a learner identified prior knowledge and skills. For those providers who do not like offering RPL (which is the majority), it will be convenient for them that most students do not identify as having any prior knowledge and skills. This introduces a level of vagueness that will lead to many providers not developing RPL assessment tools and systemically excluding RPL as a service. If it isn’t broken, don’t try and fix it. I would recommend that you revert to the current language in the SRTO 2015.
Proposed Clause: 1.4.2. Where learners identify as having previously completed a relevant training product which is determined by the RTO to be equivalent in content and training outcomes, credit transfer is granted (unless prevented by licensing or regulatory requirements) where this is evidenced
Comment: 1.4.2. I recommend this be moved to the “Compliance Based Requirements”. Credit transfer is an administrative process and should not be confused with assessment.
Proposed Clause: 3.1.1 a. Each person delivering, or providing direction to a person delivering, training and/or assessment, has:
a) qualification(s), and/or skills and knowledge, appropriate in content and level for what they are delivering and/or assessing
Comment: 3.1.1 a. The current requirement (SRTO 2015) specifies the need for the trainer to hold the “competencies” is obviously problematic. This is because it implies that the person needs to hold the exact same competencies which is often not the case, and it then results in a subjective consideration by the ASQA assessor based on the evidence of equivalent competency. Saying this, I really think moving away from using competency as the basis for demonstrating vocational competency will open a can of worms of creating an even more subjective requirement. It seems to me that this proposed change whilst attempting to soften this requirement is going to create an a highly subjective evidence requirement for the RTO that is difficult to satisfy. If the trainer holds the same qualification but not the same units of competency, is that OK? What if the trainer does not hold the qualification but they hold the skills and knowledge, how is this evidenced? What about experience, is this a consideration? It doesn’t mention anything about required experience. I feel that this change will make the regulation of vocational competency even worse. If you must change, I would suggest the following for 3.1.1 a “hold or can demonstrate equivalent vocational competency to the level being delivered and assessed”. Then, in addition to this, include “equivalent vocational competency” in the Glossary with a detailed definition.
Proposed Clause: 3.1.1 b. Each person delivering, or providing direction to a person delivering, training and/or assessment, has b) an understanding of current industry practices relevant to the training product.
Comment: 3.1.1 b. The previous standard (SRTO 2015) required “current industry skills directly relevant to the training and assessment being provided”. It also defined (in the Glossary) as including the expectation of “experience”. This change seems to strip the requirement of industry experience away. It only seems to require an “understanding of current industry practices”. Does this mean I could finish a course yesterday and be assigned as a trainer today? Is industry experience no longer a requirement? I recommend that you leave this clause the same as 1.13b and include the same definition of “current industry skills” in the new Glossary.
Proposed Clause: 3.2.1. Trainers and assessors: a) undertake professional development, including through structured learning, to ensure current skills and knowledge in training and assessment, including engaging and supporting learners
Comment: 3.2.1 a Need a definition of “structured learning” in the context of trainer professional development. I have already had a dozen questions from different clients asking me what I think this means. I think you need to provide a definition in the Glossary about what structured learning is so that providers have something to base their strategy and practice on. I have suggested that it possibly means “A series of connected professional development events and activities that collectively develop the participants knowledge and understanding in the required capability”.
Proposed Clause: 5.2.1 Systematic monitoring and evaluation: c) enables the RTO to identify and manage risks to the achievement of the outcomes described in the Standards.
Comment: 5.2.1 c. I spent a couple of years back in 2009-10 touring the country on behalf of ACPET delivering workshops on various topics including compliance risk management. We had an entire doctrine around compliance risk management that we supplied to clients. Overall, I found that it was very seldom taken up as most providers are just simply confused by the concept of risk management particularly when you apply it to a management risk such as compliance with standards. To be honest, it’s difficult enough getting a client to understand and apply the PDCA model in support of continuous improvement let alone expecting them to apply a risk management approach to compliance management. We would have a handful of very large and well-resourced clients that apply risk management well, but other than this, virtually no takers. Even back at the time when continuous improvement was the topic of the day (2007-2012) and everybody wanted to implement arrangements in support of continuous improvement, it was impossible to get clients to switch on to risk management as a concept. I think it’s a fantastic idea, but it might be a bar too high for most providers. You would need to support the implementation of this with significant support mechanisms and material. The problem is that risk management is such a specific model of application. You talk about making the standards less prescriptive, well, this is inserting a requirement that is highly prescriptive. I think you might have been better to introduce a more general requirement that allows the provider to find the best fit quality systems for their operation. Maybe something like “5.2.1c. enables the RTO’s application of self-assurance to the achievement of the outcomes described in the Standards.”.
Suggestions for the Glossary
Refer to my comments on clause 1.1.1a, I recommend that you include the meaning of “training”.
Refer to my comments on clause 3.1.1a, I recommend that you include the meaning of “equivalent vocational competency”.
Refer to my comments on clause 3.1.1 b, I recommend that you include the meaning of “current industry skills”.
Refer to my comments on clause 3.2.1 b, I recommend that you include the meaning of “structured learning”.
Feedback on the review of Fee Protection Measures
The area where most providers have trouble with this is correlating the current fee protection threshold with the cost of trainers and tuition cost but also all the upfront cost required to attract and administer the enrolment. The standard does not differentiate between these different costs, and it should. A business should be entitled to recover the upfront costs to attract an enrolment and supply the initial learning material and this should be dealt with separately to tuition fees in the fee protection meassures.
Overall and Final Comment
In closing I make the final points:
The move toward less prescription will encourage more inconsistency in regulation for providers and this will lead to greater uncertainty about where compliance is and more subjective audit findings.
Every applicable standard or definition needs to encourage the delivery of adequate training and practice in the skills required to be demonstration in assessment. It is rare now to see time allocated to skill development with trainer supervision prior to assessment. This is the primary systemic threat to the reputation of the VET sector. I do not think the revised standards go far enough to address this.
I think the new structure is fine. Really it is just a different horse in the same horse race. If you hang around long enough, everything old is new again. Think about the 1997 QETO standards that supported the Australian Recognition Framework or the 2007 “Essential Standards” with the accompanying “Conditions of Registration”. This new edition is not ground-breaking new work. It doesn’t make it more or less complex for providers. It just introduces a new requirement that the entire sector needs to come to terms with. It will introduce operational turbulence during an otherwise extremely busy and challenging time. As you may be aware, we are dealing with a skills shortage including a shortage of trainers. Your timing could not be worse. The entire sector will need significant support to implement these changes including workshops, guidance materials, access to regulator advisors, time and maybe even some type of financial assistance (compensation) to help with implementation.
We need to mandate a system of transparent regulatory moderation on these new standards by ASQA that should be publicly available, so the regulatory interpretation of these revised standards is transparent and can inform provider strategy and practices. Reliability between ASQA auditors is atrocious and any new compliance framework should be supported by a mandatory regulatory moderation arrangement. Your draft compliance requirements talk about transparency in provider governance arrangements. I think this needs to cut both ways and the regulator needs to be transparent about their regulatory interpretations arrived at through their audit moderation.
Good training,
Joe Newbery
Published: 19th January 2023
VET News – 21st December 2022
|
VET News – 7th December 2022
|
VET News – 22nd November 2022
|
VET News – 9th November 2022
|
Observation Assessment Webinar
This webinar is aimed to increase your understanding of observation assessment. Joe will explore the common problems with observation assessment, explore criterion referenced assessment as a foundation assessment method and talk through designing observation tools and mapping observation assessment. Benchmarking will also be discussed, along with the dos and don’ts of recording observation evidence. This webinar is packed full of valuable information that will help ensure that your students are receiving the benefit of valid criterion referenced assessment according to a nationally consistent standard and of course to develop a proactive and positive RTO compliance culture.
VET News – 26th October 2022
|
Admin in support of compliance
This webinar focuses on the Standards for Registered Training Organisations directly relevant to RTO administration including marketing, pre-enrolment engagement, student rights and obligations, fees and payments, fee protection, credit transfer, assessment quality control and lastly issuing AQF certificates. The admin team perform a critical role in the RTO to process applications, assist in quality control and undertake student engagement. This webinar unpacks the responsibilities of the admin team in contributing to and maintaining the compliance of the RTO.
VET News – 28th September 2022
|
VET News – 26th August 2022
|
VET News – 20th July 2022
|
VET News – 23rd June 2022
|
Competency Based Course Design
Have you ever been tasked with developing a nationally recognised course to deliver a qualification? If you have never done this before and have not particularly had any formal training, it can be a very daunting task. I regularly encounter people working on a course development and this primarily has them customising commercially acquired learning / assessment resources without much thought to the actual course design. This is common. In my view, the skill of “course design” has been lost to our sector and I think it is something we need to find and develop as a capability within every RTO. In this article series, I want to try and address this and provide an easy to follow guide for designing a basic unit-by-unit VET course in support of achieving a qualification.
Course Design – Part Three – The Analysis
Course Design – Part Three – The Analysis
In part three of this article series on course design, we dive into the Analysis of the course requirements including analysing the target learner, the workplace requirements and the training package requirements.
Analyse the workplace requirements
You have a concept for the delivery of a qualification. Before you jump too far into acting on this concept, the first thing you want to do is identify some industry representatives that you can talk to and get some feedback on their requirements. Of course, consulting with industry is a requirement of the RTO standards, so this is a good thing to do not only from a compliance perspective but also to make sure that the training you are about to design is going to be well received by your customers. Industry consultation is basically a win / win for you and industry and it’s a no-brainer. Who is industry? Answer: The potential future employers of your students. Identify the businesses or organisations that may be likely to offer your students employment or it may actually be your student’s current employer. Develop a questionnaire that you can use to ask questions and capture feedback from the employer. I suggest questions like the following:
- Of these elective units of competency, which units of competency best align to the capability requirements of your workplace?
- Of these units of competency to achieve the qualification, are there any that stand out to you as being critically important and therefore requiring greater emphasis during the training process?
- Are there any workplace procedures or SOPs that relate to the performance of these duties, which may inform the way we train or undertake assessment?
- Are there any industry standards, guidelines or codes of practice that are applicable to the way work needs to be performed in your workplace?
- Are there any specialised items of equipment or resources that you use in this workplace that we should ensure students are trained on and familiar with?
- Are there any workplace forms or documentation that underpin the performance of tasks that would be suitable for us to introduce into the training and assessment activities?
There are many other questions that you could ask but the above questions really do go to the core of the information we need to find out from industry stakeholders to inform the development of training. I usually advise clients to ask these questions verbally and take notes as opposed to handing over a questionnaire to an industry representative. Keep a record of the details of the industry representative that you spoke with, the feedback that you received and most importantly the outcomes that were identified that informed the course design.
Analyse the Training Package requirements
With the completion of your industry consultation, your next step is to refer to the training package for your target qualification and select your units of competency in alignment with the workplace need and qualification packaging rules. Make sure you read the rules really carefully as sometimes they can be a little bit tricky in terms of needing to select a number of units from specialised groups. It’s always a good idea to get another person to review your selection to make sure that you have interpreted the qualification packaging rules correctly and have constituted a valid qualification. Your selection of units of competency needs to align with the workplace need to ensure the students that complete the course are getting the skills that are revevant to industry. It may be appropriate to include some elective options depnding on the variety of workplace requirements that need to be supported.
You also need to take note of any particular entry requirements that may apply to the qualification or any prerequisite requirements that apply to the units of competency. Usually these will be explained clearly but if you don’t go looking for them sometimes you can miss these. Take note of entry requirements, unit pre-requisites, qualification packaging rules, any mandated work requirement, et cetera. It is also recommended that you check the companion volume or implementation guide for the training package for any recommended requirements in there. There is a link to the companion volume implementation guide on the national training register at the applicable training package and training product page. The implementation guide (companion volume) is not part of the endorsed component of the training package but, sometimes there is some useful information that clarifies the requirements for a training product such as recommendations around how work placement may be implemented, assessment conditions or guidance around pre-requisites.
Once you have your selected units of competency, open up each one and review the unit and particularly review the Assessment Requirements document to note significant performance evidence and the assessment conditions. Assessment conditions can have a significant impact on how the course might be designed in terms of the need for assessment in an actual workplace or a simulated workplace and the equipment and resources that are needed to support assessment. I also like to take note of any significant repetition in the knowledge evidence. Is there a lot of common knowledge between the units of competency? This may be useful to know down the track when deciding how or if you might group units for delivery. You should make notes on these requirements so you can refer back to this information later. You might think going into every unit at this stage is a little tedious but, if you have ever found yourself in the position of almost completing a course development and then you discover some significant requirement in the assessment conditions that has a major impact on the structure and design of the course, you will be kicking yourself that you didn’t take the time earlier to look in detail at each unit. Trust me, I have done this and if I am honest, more than once. Remember the analyse phase is all about gathering information, so take the time to look at everything so you have the benefit of this information moving forward.
Lastly, confirm the expected volume of learning according to qualification level and the Australian Qualification Framework. Volume of Learning alone is a very big topic to consider, so I will recommend you refer to our three part series of articles which begin with The Amount of Training – Part One. In addition to the expected volume of learning, I will also record what the allocated nominal hours are for each unit of competency. I do this by going to the NCVER Nationally agreed nominal hours page, download the data onto the browser and then to a page search for each unit code. This takes only a few minutes. Why am I interested in the nominal hours? Good question. I am not using the nominal hours to determine the duration of the course. That is the role of the volume of learning. Nominal hours were introduced in the 90s to provide a basis for the funding of nationally recognised training by allocating the hours of training notionally required to achieve the outcomes of units of competency. They are still useful at identifying the weighting difference between single units in the same course. Lets say you have one unit that is allocated only 20 nominal hours and another unit is allocated 60 nominal hours. What this tells us that when we allocate the time in the course to each unit, they should not be allocated equally. They should be allocated proportionately based on the complexity and depth of each unit and the amount of training required. Remember, this is just information gathering at this stage. This information will be useful in the design phase.
With your analysis of the training package, you should complete this step with an understanding of:
- the qualification framework rules,
- the selection of units of competency,
- any mandatory entry requirements,
- any mandatory pre/co-requisites,
- significant performance evidence requirements,
- significant common knowledge evidence requirements,
- significant assessment conditions,
- significant equipment, resource, facility requirements,
- mandatory work placement requirements,
- the volume of learning for the qualification,
- the nominal hours for each unit of competency, and
- any mandatory work placement requirement.
Analyse the target learner
So that you can plan your course with confidence particularly in relation to delivery modes and duration, you really need to understand who the target learner is. The way that training and assessment strategies have evolved in the last 10 years means that, your training and assessment strategy needs to be written for a particular target learner and a particular mode of delivery. If you had the same course being delivered to two different target learners (with different needs) requiring different delivery durations and modes, you would need to have two different training and assessment strategies to reflect these different delivery arrangements. Acknowledging this, I do encourage clients to try and narrow down their description of a target learner to be very specific. Don’t worry about the significant variation that can and might occur in relation to those who might want to do the course. Concentrate on the typical target learner that represents the vast majority of learners who will present for this course. There is an entire body of theory around target learner analysis, and I have certainly produced target learner reports in my past that would pass the weight test. If you have time for that, great, but for everyone else, I recommend that you focus on identifying your target learner characteristics in response to the following questions:
- Are they likely to be an existing worker or seeking to enter the industry? This is an important question because the answer can have a fundamental influence on how the training and assessment is delivered. As an example, if your target learner is already employed in a similar or related role to the proposed course, it means that they may have some pre-existing skills and knowledge and there may be the opportunity to use their current workplace for the learning and assessment context. It means that potentially the course could be delivered in a shorter timeframe (because of the pre-existing skills and knowledge) and the learning and assessment activities could be designed to utilise the existing workplace for context as opposed to trying to introduce a simulated context. Also, if the learner is currently employed it means they have less time to participate in training. If they are not employed, they are more available and are usually super motivated to finish the course as quickly as possible.
- Are there any expected pre-existing knowledge and skills? I realise this was partially considered in the above question, but it deserves its own question. With the focus on volume of learning in the standards and by the national regulator, considering the learners pre-existing knowledge and skills is important. Individuals can acquire knowledge and skills in many ways but, we are not talking about ‘individuals’ here. We are talking about a target learner group. That’s an important distinction. As an example, you may be designing a course for existing and qualified aged care workers seeking to undertake the Certificate IV in Aging, or you may be designing a course for school leavers who have completed a sport and recreation VET in Schools pathway seeking to complete a Certificate IV in Sport and Recreation. The point is, we need to try and value the expected existing knowledge and skills these learners will hold when they enter the planned course. How to do this? Firstly, consult industry representatives and your colleagues and get their opinions on what knowledge and skills these target learners are expected to have. Certainly, refer to any documents that are available that might inform this. What you are doing is building a picture in your mind of the target learner. Who are they and what do they already know and what can they do? Then, take an hour or two to open up each unit for your planned course and read through the performance criteria and the knowledge evidence and ask yourself two very simple questions. Do they already do this? Do they already know this? I know, it sounds very simplistic, but as I go through the units, I make notes and write down all the things they can already do and all the things they already know. Be conservative in this. If you read a knowledge and think,,, maybe,, no, leave it off the list. Only include those items where you have that Colgate ring of confidence that,, yes, they will already know this or they are already doing this in their current work. At the end of this process, you will have a measure for the expected pre-existing knowledge and skills. You can use this information when giving weight to the amount of learning required and also use it in your rationale for a reduced about of training if applicable.
- What is their availability to participate in the course? This is such an important question and one many do not consider. I mentioned above that the current employment situation of the target learner is an important factor to determine. Are they existing workers or are they job seekers? Job seekers will have a lot more availability and existing workers will be less available unless they are getting some type of work release for training. Availability influences how you structure your training and when/how you deliver it. As an example, if you are delivering to existing workers, you might choose to deliver on-the-job training supported by online learning. If you intend to deliver off-the-job training to existing workers, you will need to consider options like block release where the employer releases the student for a block of time, say a week every month or every two months, et cetera. You may also consider night classes or weekend classes for existing workers particularly if the training being undertaken is not connected to their current work. Think retail / hospitality workers seeking a side-hustle and undertaking a Certificate III in Entrepreneurship and New Business or Certificate IV in Accounting and Bookkeeping as examples. These guys are working full time and are looking for options to progress with their dreams in their available time. These are truly the best student to train! These considerations are fairly straightforward. What is less straightforward is the availability for non-supervised training. Since the introduction of ‘amount of training’ requirements in 2015, there has been an explosion of this concept called “self-paced learning”! OMG, this would have to be the most abused and misunderstood strategies in course design hands down. This is the time that you allocate additional study and assessment to the student outside of scheduled supervised training. You really need to consider how much time the student is likely to have to complete these activities? Also, what is their motivation to complete these activities?
- I just cannot move on without giving you a common example of what I encounter. Lets say the RTO has allocated 6 hours per week to self-paced study. In addition to that, they have allocated another 6 hours to complete the non-supervised assessment tasks (projects, assignments, reports, et cetera). Ok, we have a requirement for 12 hours per week for the student to complete training and assessment tasks in their own time. Ok, lets now assume they are an existing worker. Anyone who has kids knows exactly where I am going with this. So, the existing worker gets home after picking the kids up from childcare and dropping into the shop on the way home. Lets say it is now 5:45 pm. They then enter the domestic bliss of homework, cooking dinner, planning / prepping for tomorrow, baths, TV, and bed. Now it is 8:00 pm and they have emerged out of all that exhausted. Now, study on the weekend is not plausible. We have kids sport, shopping, housework, and if we are lucky, maybe a little outing or relax time (you need that!). So, this means they need to cram in the 12 hours of “self-paced study” and “non-supervised assessment” between 8:00 – 10:30 pm Monday – Friday! Not going to happen and any course designer who thinks this is viable is dreaming. My recommendation is to absolutely limit the total of “self-paced study” and “non-supervised assessment” to a maximum of 5 hours per week. Keep it realistic. Anyway, the point is, you need to determine what is the likely availability of the target learner and design the course contact hours according to this.
- Other considerations about the target learner. Other things to consider about the target learner include, what is their likely level of education, are there any licencing requirements that are applicable, what is the typical age range, what is their likely preference for how to engage in training, where are they geographically located, what is their likely access to technology and the Internet, are there any likely barriers to engage in training, what is their motivation to undertake the course, will they likely have any available support during the training, what is their likely access to the required equipment to practise and develop skills, et cetera. You can see that the considerations are fairly in-exhaustive. The key point is, before you launch into designing and developing the training, just pause and consult with others and put together a picture of who your target learner is so that you are able to design the training according to their situation.
In future articles in this series on course design, I will take a deep dive into the design phase of the training development process including course structure, duration, unit weighting, sequencing, scaffolding, alignment with the training package requirements and course logic (coming soon).
Good training,
Joe Newbery
Published: 30th May 2022
Copyright © Newbery Consulting 2021. All rights reserved.
VET News – 26th May 2022
|
Course Design – Part Two – The TD Process
Course Design – Part Two – The TD Process
In part two of this article series on course design we take a look at the training development process of Analyse, Design, Develop, Deliver and Evaluate.
The training development process
The first time I was introduced to a systems approach to training design was about 1997. I had just completed a couple of years training recruits at the 1st Recruit Training Battalion at Kapooka and had absolutely decided that whatever my future involves it was going to involve training. The Handbook of the Army Training System had just been released in a new edition in 1997 and it described the phases of the Army Training System as Analyse, Design, Develop, Conduct and Validate. Of course, these phases of the training system were originally adapted from the US Army / Florida State University instructional design model developed back in 1975 (Wikipedia) which included the phases of Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, Evaluation. If you want to dive into this in greater detail, just Google “ADDIE Model” and you will have it all before you! I personally prefer ‘Deliver’ over Conduct or Implement and ‘Evaluate’ in preference to Validate. That’s just my personal preference as I think it better reflects our contemporary arrangements in VET today.
In a nutshell, it goes something like this:
- Analyse. Conduct an analysis of the environment for which training is being developed and decide on the approach to be taken in the course design to address the skilling need. By ‘environment’ I mean determine things like, what does the workplace need and expect, what does the training package require, who is the target learner, what is the preferred enrollment model, are there any restrictions or limitations to be considered, what are the financial considerations, is there a preferred or required duration, what facilities and resources are available, who will deliver the training, et cetera. At the end of the analysis phase, you will have considered everything and will have selected a preferred design approach for the planned course. I should also point out that, good analysis may identify where a training solution is not the prefered or only option. The analysis may show that an acceptible workplace capability could equaly be achieved by other solutions such as introducing new equipment or work aids that can be augmented into the workplace without the need to train an entite cohort of people. The thing about the analyse phase is to collect and analyse the information and keep your mind open to all of the options. Training is usually the “go to” which I understand but dont simply assume it is the only solution. If the target learner is already employed performing the skills in industry, maybe a suitable options is to provide targeted gap training coupled with an assessment only pathway which results in the achivement of the training product in a more efficient way.
- Design. The design phase is where you start to play with units of competency to determine the sequence and structure of the course, the units weighting in the course, the learning and assessment requirements. This is where we unpack each unit of competency to identify what the learner needs to learn both in theory and practice and determine what are the required assessment tasks. You will make decisions about delivery modes and assessment methods and piece these learning and assessment activities together into a course program over the target duration. With the wide availability of commercial course packages, much of this work may already be completed but, you will still need to unpack all those materials to determine what the learning and assessment activities are and determine how these will be programmed over the course duration. At the end of the design phase, you will basically have a draft Training and Assessment Strategy which includes a detailed course program showing the learning and assessment activities and how these are sequenced and structured over the course duration. You basically have a map to head into the development phase.
- Develop. The development phase is where you start the development of those learning resources and assessment tools according to your developed course program and the agreed modes of delivery. If you are using a commercial course package, this is where you get to customise those materials according to your plan. They never come ready to go or compliant, so this is the time to pull them apart and piece then back together so that if you claimed that students will be undertaking a certain learning mode, you have the learning resources to support this. This also applies to the assessment. Maybe the knowledge assessment is too thin or there are not sufficient observation tools and benchmarking to support the assessment. Maybe the assessment instructions are vague or the tasks are not valid. This is the time to work your way through all these materials and customise them. Try and stay aligned to the original course design, but if you find something along the way that needs to inform or change the design, speak up. It is better to make these changes now that halfway through a delivery. At the end of the develop phase, you will have an entire course curriculum complete with a final training and assessment strategy and all the learning resources and assessment tools ready for the delivery.
- Deliver. The deliver phase (also referred to as Conduct or Implement) involves the enrolment of learners and the commencement of the training and assessment according to the developed course program and curriculum. You may decide to conduct this first course as a pilot course where heavier than usual quality and evaluation arrangements are put in place to monitor how the training and assessment is being received. A few questions that are relevant include, is the time allocated sufficient, did learners get enough time to practice before being assessed, was the expectation of ‘self-paced learning’ unrealistic? The delivery phase is not just about delivering the training and assessment. It also about evaluating how the training performed based on the experience of those involved. People can get confused about this, noting that evaluate is the next phase. Having a basic understanding of Kirkpatrick’s levels of learning evaluation (Wikipedia) will help explain this approach. In the delivery phase we are evaluating the experience of participants (level 1) including both learners and trainers on how the training was to deliver and receive. We also evaluate the acquisition of the skills and knowledge by learners through their engagement in the training (level 2). Did the training provide adequate preparation for assessment, what is the level of learner confidence to perform these tasks in the workplace? At the end of the pilot course, you produce a pilot course evaluation report that identifies all of the recommendations and opportunities for improvement and you feed this into your ongoing course development for future delivery.
- Evaluate. The evaluation phase (also referred to as the validation phase) is conducted usually a bit down the track (maybe 12-24 months) once the learners’ have entered the workplace and have had a chance to apply their training inthe workplace environment. The evaluation should look at two specific questions again drawing on Kirkpatrick’s levels of learning evaluation. First question, did the training adequately prepare the learner to perform the required tasks in the workplace (level 3). Were there gaps (missed training)? Was there anything they were not prepared for (under training)? Were there any skills that were not required in the workplace (over training)? Ok, there were lots of questions in that first question, but I think you get my point. The second question, did the workplace get the personnel capability they needed (level 4)? Do you recall that very first thing we considered right back in the analyse phase “what does the workplace need and expect”? In this part of the evaluation, we need to determine if industry were satisfied with the skills and knowledge the worker entered their workplace with. Were there any gaps from their perspective? How have any relevant KPIs performed that directly relate to worker skills (think safety, work remediation, waste, productivity, customer satisfaction, etc). Were the skills easily transferred to the workplace context or are there areas the RTO could improve to make the training more relevant?
I love this stuff. The reality is, we just do not do this anymore in either the public or private RTO sector. There may be some rare instances of highly motivated trainers and teachers following up with industry, but overall,,, not happening. The enterprise RTO world are much better at this for obvious reasons. The enterprise RTO is usually a business unit within the organisation and the effectiveness of training is directly measured by business productivity and worker safety. Way to go! I made a suggestion many years ago that we should link subsidised training payments for RTOs to the actual outcomes measured in the workplace and not purely on learner completions. I know, it would require a dramatic change to the current business as usual, but wow, what a great way to make sure training is accountable and directly aligned to industry requirements. At the end of the evaluation phase, we feed all our recommendations and opportunities for improvement back into the course analysis and design for future delivery and around we go. That is a very brief explanation of the training development process and of course in this article series we are focusing on Analyse and Design only. In Part Three of this article series on course design, we dive into the Analysis of the course requirements including analysing the target learner, the workplace requirements and the training package requirements.
Course Design – Part Three – The Analysis
Good training,
Joe Newbery
Published: 16th May 2022
Copyright © Newbery Consulting 2021. All rights reserved.
VET News – 29th April 2022
|
Course Design – Part One – Unit Structuring
Course Design – Part One – Unit Structuring
Introduction
Have you ever been tasked with developing a nationally recognised course to deliver a qualification? If you have never done this before and have not particularly had any formal training, it can be a very daunting task. I regularly encounter people working on a course development and this primarily has them customising commercially acquired learning / assessment resources without much thought to the actual course design. This is common. In my view, the skill of “course design” has been lost to our sector and I think it is something we need to find and develop as a capability within every RTO.
I regularly come across client courses which have not been designed from the bottom up. How can I tell this? Here are some of the giveaways. The unit sequence of delivery is straight out of the training package core and elective list, the course commences with units that are too complex before the student has a chance to learn the basics, work placement is commenced too early before the student had a chance to learn the skills that will keep them and others safe in the workplace, pre-requisites are not complied with, inadequate time allocated to some complex units and too much time allocated to simple units, the enrolment model being used does not match the delivery strategy (synchronous / asynchronous), students being expected to undertake assessment when they haven’t received adequate training. I could go on. The point is, in almost all these cases, the RTO didn’t understand or was not aware of these requirements or options. It’s like, nobody is teaching this stuff and when I look across the various authoritive websites including the National VET Regulator, there is no guidance. In this article, I want to try and address that and provide an easy to follow guide for designing a basic unit-by-unit VET course in support of achieving a qualification.
What to expect in this article series?
This series of articles on unit-by-unit course design is not intended as some authoritive source on all things on the theory and practice of training design. There are plenty of books and courses on this subject if you have the time. Most of us simply do not have time to digest that level of detail in our busy lives. This series is intended as a “down in the weeds”, step by step approach for someone with a working knowledge of training and assessment to design a course in support of a qualification. I have focused this series on course design for a qualification as opposed to a short course. I am also making some assumptions about the readers current knowledge and skills in training and assessment. If you have completed your Certificate IV in Training and Assessment you should be fine. I am not dealing with learning resource or assessment tool development in this article. That is probably another article and I have assumed that you will acquire your learning and assessment resources from a commercial provider. I have also aimed at a course for those entering an industry and not for targeted enterprise training. If you are about to start on a course design, fantastic! Just take one step at a time and come back to this article as you progress.
The following is an outline of the articles planned for this series:
- In this first article (Part One), I talk about the past to understand how we got to this point in our national training framwork. I will also explain the three basic structure options for designing a competency based course.
- In the second article (Part Two), I will spend a little time, explaining the training development process of Analyse, Design, Develop, Deliver and Evaluate.
- In the third article (Part Three), I will dive into the Analysis of the course requirements which includes analysing the target learner.
- In future articles (coming soon), I will take a deep dive into the design phase of the training development process including course structure, duration, unit weighting, sequencing, scaffolding, alignment with the training package requirements and course logic. As this series is still in progress, it is difficult to know how many articles it will be in the end, so I will know when it is finished. The design phase is such a big and important phase so, it is likely to be a number of articles.
The Past
For those who read my articles regularly, you will know that I am fond of looking back and remembering how we got to this point. Our current National Skills Framework is based on the competency based training and assessment (CBTA) model. It has largely been this way since about 1990 when the National Training Board was established to supervise the development of industry competency standards. Prior to this, the predominate approach in support of vocational training delivery was a module based curriculum design. Modules focused on taking “chunks” of course content usually organised around course learning objectives and logically sequenced for delivery into module learning outcomes. If you are 50 or older, you will recall the reference to CLOs and MLOs immediately. Course design back in those days was more of an art form that a science. Module based curriculum design was limited to organisations that were very well resourced, it was subjective and usually unique to the course designer’s personal approach to training design. This meant that it typically was not flexible to adapt to different industry context and certainly was not nationally recognised or portable. It could be shared maybe between different delivery sites within the same institute or enterprise but was not feasible for sharing on an industry wide scale. Whilst it had these inefficiencies, this doesn’t mean the training was inferior. The training quality was arguably better than we have today because it was concentrated in very well resourced organisations (like Defence, TAFE, Ford, et cetera) and was designed for a very focused capability outcome. But, it was not available to the masses and if we were ever going to achieve equity across industry in the lifting of national productivity through skilled workers, we had to make a change and so, the National Framework for the Recognition of Training was born.
With the introduction of the National Framework for the Recognition of Training in 1991, we witnessed a dramatic growth in the establishment of “Training Packages” as they became known. This began firstly with the work by State level Industry Training Advisory Bodies (ITABs) in the early 1990s and then by the national ITABs coordinated by the Australian National Training Authority from 1996. Of course, these days we take for granted the availability of our nationally endorsed training packages which cover almost every aspect of Australian industry. I think it is worthy to take pause and recognised the amazing contribution of all those dedicated VET professional who gave their working life to establish our current national training system. From the beginning it has and continues to evolve and be adapted to the times. Today, we can now go to the national training register and select a training product for just about every common trade or occupation you can think of and, bam, you have a unit of competency framework ready for design and shaping into a course. It is a wonderful thing and we all should not take for granted the many 1000’s of hours that have gone into its development. Thank you to all those who contributed.
Course Design Options
I began my career in military instruction in 1995 and from 2002 have worked in one form or another in training design. As a consultant in vocational education and training from 2005, I have literally either designed myself or supervised the design of many hundreds of VET courses. Over that time, I have predominately designed courses using one (or a combination) of the following course design options:
- Unit-by-unit. The unit-by-unit course design means that each individual unit of competency is trained and assessed as a “discreet component” of a course. I choose those words very deliberately. I wanted to use language such as “separately” or “in isolation”, but this is not the case. The unit may be a discreet component, but it is not delivered in isolation or separate to other units. In fact, there will often be a close and deliberate relationship to units that are being delivered before, parallel to and after any one unit. Some people may assume that unit-by-unit means a “lock-step delivery” (one after the other). It certainly can if this is desired, but there are many other options when you view the unit as a component that can be delivered alongside and compliment other components (units). When we say the course structure is “unit-by-unit” it usually means that each unit has its own discreet learning and assessment and it is not reliant on the learning and assessment of other units. As you will see as we progress, there are contradictions to this because, learning design is flexible. But, the central concept about unit-by-unit remains, each unit has its own discreet learning and assessment.
- Clustering. Clustering for course design can take many forms and this short paragraph will not do it justice, but I will do my best. Clustering is the process of developing learning and assessment to meet the requirements for groups of units of competency which have a related work function and/or industry / enterprise need. We may group (cluster) units together for learning and assessment because they are performed together in the workplace (work activity cluster). We may group units together because they have a common or are linked through application in a project activity (project cluster). Lastly, we may group units together because they share many of the same knowledge or skills (common knowledge and skills cluster). Clustering units of competency for delivery usually means that we analyse the knowledge from all units in the cluster and make a comprehensive list of knowledge. We then remove the duplication of knowledge and then order the knowledge for logic (maybe simple to complex). We also analyse the skills or tasks that are required by the units in the cluster and make a list of these, remove the duplication, and order these skills according to the workplace requirements. We may combine some of these skills into tasks that reflect the way this work is performed. We then overlay this list of knowledge and skills (tasks) and massage them into a logical learning sequence and insert assessment at logical points in the sequence. We insert the assessment tasks usually when students have had the opportunity to properly develop their skills through practice and feedback prior to assessment. Now you have a learning and assessment pathway for a group of units of competency with no duplication of training or assessment which usually means it is very efficient. At least, that is how I do it. We then repeat the process for all units in clusters and sequence the clusters for delivery as a course. Easy! Seriously, its not that easy, but you get the picture.
- Holistic. Holistic course design is almost lost to the sector and is something I encounter very rarely these days. Designing a course holistically was very common under a module based curriculum design. It is very similar to clustering except on a larger scale. We take all of the knowledge from all units and synthesise these down to a unique list of knowledge in a logical learning sequence. We analyse all of the skills in all units of competency and synthesise these down to a unique list of tasks that align with the workplace expectation. We overlay these and massage them into a logical learning sequence and insert assessment at logical points in the sequence. The point is with holistic course design, the units of competency have basically disappeared into the background and are only identifiable via a very complex mapping document. There are also no or very few exit points where the student can exit with units of competency achieved. It is common that the student needs to complete the entire course to be issued any units of competency. Holistic course design is still occasionally seen delivered in RTOs where the overriding focus is on the personnel capability development going into very specific roles and the quality of the skills being developed. A couple of examples include large enterprise RTOs such as Defence, policing, aviation or niche private RTOs delivering very high end training in things like aviation, paramedicine or performing arts. Units of competency in these examples are secondary to designing and delivering training which results in very high end and durable skill development where the margin for error can either have major consequences or the industry itself will accept nothing other than perfection (performing arts). Why use units of competency at all? Because the RTO is either obliged to deliver Nationally Recognised Training to align with the accepted (mandated) national quality framework (think government enterprise RTOs) or the training may be funded via VET Student Loans and therefore needs to align with a nationally recognised qualification (aviation).
In Part Two of this article series on unit-by- unit course design we commence by taking a look at the training development process of Analyse, Design, Develop, Deliver and Evaluate. I hope you can continue the journey.
Course Design – Part Two – The TD Process
Good training,
Joe Newbery
Published: 25th April 2022
Copyright © Newbery Consulting 2021. All rights reserved.
VET News – 7th April 2022
|
VET News – 24th March 2022
|
VET News – 23rd February 2022
|
VET News – 22nd December 2021
|
Enrolment Models and Considerations
Enrolment Models and Considerations
When I begin working with a client to develop a course offering, one of the very first considerations I raise is the enrolment model that is best suited to the course delivery. It is such an important early consideration and it is amazing to me that there doesn’t seem to be any written guidance for RTOs on this subject. I would love to see the NCVER do some research into the productivity and student outcomes achieved using different enrolment models.
In this article, I share my experience having reviewed, audited, built, advised on many hundreds of enrolment models and pathways with clients over almost two decades as a VET consultant. My hope in providing this information is that you can give informed consideration to your enrolment model so that it works not only for your business but results in a better and more supported learning experience for students. It is another one of those things in an RTO where we are trying to find that sweet spot between quality and efficiency. This article focuses on the economics of the enrolment process in your RTO operation and not so much on the compliance requirements implicit to the enrolment. I will touch on compliance a little toward the end but only insofar as not to ignore it completely. Here we go.
Enrolment Pathways
Broadly speaking, there are two common enrolment pathways that are used by training organisations. These include:
- Cohort Enrolment. Where a group of learners are enrolled and commence a course at the same time.
- Rolling Enrolment. Where an individual learner can enrol and commence a course at any time or at designated entry points.
Let’s look at some common considerations which will hopefully bring out the advantages and disadvantages of the cohort enrolment vs rolling enrolment models.
Recruitment
Recruitment for a cohort delivery often means that we advertise and market a course that is planned to commence on a specific date. You may often here advertisements from the likes of TAFE promoting enrolments for the next semester, as an example. This has some advantages as it allows you to concentrate your marketing spend into the time leading up to a course commencement to maximise enrolments and to ease off your marketing spend in the times when the course is already full and is being delivered. Conversely, using a rolling enrolment will mean that you are spreading your marketing budget over the entire year to generate continual interest and enquiries. This can sometimes be less efficient as you spend a lower amount over a longer duration. This can result in a lower number of enrolment but can often result in a greater cost overall. Of course, if you are recruiting using a rolling enrolment and you currently have no vacancies, you can turn this advertising on and off as needed.
It also can allow you to concentrate your administrative costs in the same fashion. If you are enrolling and hopefully completing a cohort of students at the same time, it can allow you increase your administrative support over these intensive periods of processing enrolments and completions and reduce your admin support to maintenance only during the middle period. Our student management software RTO Data Cloud is designed to facilitate this. You can add and subtract users anytime you like so you are not paying for SMS users in low activity periods. Conversely, if you are enrolling students using a rolling enrolment, you are likely to have a constant need to process enrolments and completions throughout the year.
Students being recruited into a cohort delivery are usually in a life or career transition and are usually more available to undertake the course on a more regular or fulltime basis. Students being recruited into a rolling enrolment are usually already working and are looking for a more part time or flexible delivery. I know, this is a big generalisation, but this is often true. You can see from a recruitment perspective, understanding the profile of your typical learner for each course is critical not only for recruitment success but for enrolling the right learner into the right course. Understanding the advantages of your chosen model, allows you to highlight these advantages in your recruitment strategy.
Induction
The induction and orientation of students; particularly for longer courses, can be an intensive activity. This can include introduction to teachers, equipment issue, course material production and issue, arranging log-ins’ and setting up communication channels, organising access/attendance arrangements, safety briefing, curriculum introduction, policy induction, et cetera. There is significant efficiency in doing this once as a group rather than doing it over and over again for individual enrolments. A cohort induction also presents the opportunity for students to meet and have this common experience together which can help to establish relationships that will be beneficial as the course commences. Here enters the theory of group development established by Bruce Tuckman in 1965-1977 (Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, Adjourning). Cohort induction aids in the group forming (and maybe storming) so that we can get more quickly to norming and performing as a cohort.
Conducting course induction for individual learners in a rolling enrolment can be time consuming and result in inefficiencies. I have observed a number of clients over the years set up online induction programs to allow the student to work through the induction process independently with guidance from the RTO to alleviate this inefficiency. The very clear disadvantage with a rolling enrolment where this leads to the student undertaking the course as an individual is the absence of the group development aspect that is mentioned above. I talk about this more below in peer support.
Peer support
Peer support is where learners support each other with their learning. This might be through working together in small group activities, assisting each other to prepare for assessment, collaborating on projects, communicating on discussion forums, et cetera. This type of learner-to-learner support in synchronous learning (where a group of students are engaging in learning at the same time) is invaluable because it allows learners with different abilities to benefit from each other and enhances the learning experience. Peer support is attributed with resulting in deeper learning of skills and knowledge and in better formation of foundation skills. The more people learn to work together, to communicate, to listen and appreciate the view of others it results in better overall work skills. Peer support aligns more naturally with a cohort delivery model by the basic fact that we have a group of learners all starting and learning the same thing at the same time. This is not to say that aspects of peer support are not possible in a rolling enrolment delivery model, its just that it takes on a different shape and does not usually naturally occur. Let me explain.
Let’s say that we have a rolling enrolment where new students are entering the same course from time-to-time. Think Certificate IV in Leadership and Management where each unit of competency is a separate subject and task and a unit by unit delivery is normal. This means that it is easy for new students to join the course when vacancies are created by withdrawals. These new students can simply join the course at the commencement of the next unit. You can see that this is a rolling enrolment into a cohort and synchronous course delivery. Therefore, peer support is available, and you also benefit from a healthy group dynamic. What if you are using a rolling enrolment into an asynchronous delivery (where students are engaging in learning at different times)? This is where you need to get creative to create opportunities for peer support such as introducing online student forums, using a closed social media group for as a student forum, delivering open tutorials where students are invited to participate and engage, setting up a buddy system where students can agree to work together, etc. These peer support mechanisms can work well but not without constant effort and reinforcement. Also, you will need to have some controls in place to make sure that “peer support” does not overflow into academic misbehavior. There will always be this risk so it must be controlled and mitigated.
Resource efficiency
The planning, procurement, delivery and use of resources in training is one of the significant costs and limitations on the delivery of training. This is particularly true of training which requires access to specialist facilities, major equipment items and resources which are operated by an individual. This alone can be a major deciding factor on whether you apply a rolling or cohort enrolment. Let’s think about some actual examples. Let’s compare delivery at the RTO premises in specially designed facilities as compared with delivery as on-the-job training where the trainer visits the workplace to deliver training. A cohort model aligns better with delivery at the RTO premises and a rolling enrolment aligns better with individual on-the-job training. Consider where an RTO may be delivering training on major equipment such as an excavator. This training is typically one-on-one and is more suited to a rolling enrolment. Also consider where the RTO may rely on a leased commercial kitchen on specific times of the week. This training would need to be coordinated very carefully and delivered as a cohort delivery to maximise the use of the facility in those designated times. Each training product and RTO has different needs and resourcing arrangements and consideration of these will directly inform your selection of the enrolment model.
When you are purchasing resources and equipment in support of a course such as textbooks, consumables, makeup supplies (beauty), uniforms (commercial cookery), PPE as examples, purchasing these in bulk (in support of a cohort) will often give you purchasing power to negotiate a lower cost of supply. Therefore, this can be more cost efficient overtime. Unless you are going to purchase and store, this can be less efficient with a rolling enrolment model.
I should also just make the point here that consideration should also be given to equipment and facility maintenance. If you have individuals enrolling all the time, it can become challenging to schedule maintenance without impacting on some learner’s training. If you enrol and deliver training as a cohort then you can plan for your maintenance and conduct this at a time when there is little demand on equipment which also typically results in greater equipment uptime when the equipment is in demand (think aviation). The benefits of this approach are obvious in terms of managing assets and equipment for greater longevity, uptime, safety and training quality. Equipment and facility maintenance must be planned for and sometimes this can be an overriding factor when deciding your enrolment model.
Training efficiency
Training is delivered by trainers and the cost of trainers is typically the greatest operational cost of delivery. Ultimately, we are wanting to maximise our return on investment from the cost of training delivering. It doesn’t matter if you are a not-for-profit RTO, enterprise RTO, government RTO or a private RTO. We must be able to at least cover our operating costs otherwise we are going backward. So, by maximising the number of students being trained by each trainer we are making best use of our cost of delivery for the services being delivered. Of course, there are many other factors that inform this consideration not least of which includes training quality.
Clients often ask me, is there a benchmark or mandatory trainer / student ratio that must be complied with? No there is not. But, this is often influenced by factors such as the available space, the maturity of the learner, the experience level of the trainer and particularly the nature of the skills and knowledge being taught. If you are delivering knowledge based training in a classroom where you are presenting knowledge, theory and concepts, facilitating discussion, et cetera the main limiting factors is the space and the skill and experience of the trainer. It takes a fairly skilled trainer to engage effectively with a large group. For instance, if the client said to me, they are considering a trainer / student ratio of 1:30 for classroom theory instruction, I would be ok with this as long as the space is suitable and the nature of the training is knowledge, theory and concepts. If the client asked me for a recommendation on the trainer / student ratio, I would suggest a trainer / student ratio of 1:24 for classroom theory instruction and a trainer / student ratio of 1:12 for skills instruction. I think this is the sweet spot. I think 24 students in a classroom is about the limit of most trainers and the 24 divides nicely to 12 and 6 for skills activities as I will discuss below.
But, what about skills instruction? Skills instruction and particularly demonstration performance instruction needs to be delivered at a much lower ratio to achieve the level of supervision and feedback that is necessary to adequately develop a student’s skills. It does depend on the skills being instructed and how you manage the group. I tend to preference a trainer / student ratio of 1:12 for skills instruction. There are many skills where a trainer / student ratio of 1:12 is totally fine. Some examples of this include aged care, commercial cookery, information technology, carpentry, etc. Sometimes it is necessary to give instruction to an even smaller group such as where fine motor skills are being taught, think dental technician, optical dispensing, welding, et cetera. In these instances, the instructor can split the group into two (so, 1:6) and have one group doing a self directed parallel activity for a period of time while the trainer works with the other group of six to focus on a particular skill. Anyway, you get my point. Skills instruction will require a lower trainer / student ratio than knowledge instruction and this needs to be factored into your allocation of trainers and the return on investment consideration. On a quick side note, I suggest a trainer / student ratio of 1:40 for online learning. This number of allocated online learning students gives the trainer enough capacity to provide the required support to encourage course progress and completion. Some people might think that because it is online, that there is no limit, but I think this is total rubbish.
Ok, how is the enrolment model relevant here? Regardless of if we enrol students as a cohort or on a rolling basis, we still need to maximise the number of students in front of each trainer. In a cohort enrolment model, this is usually fine, at least at the beginning of the course. The problem is, retention. Let’s say you deliver a qualification and achieve about a 70% completion rate over a 12 month course. That means, along the way, we have lost 30% of the students. In a cohort and synchronous delivery model, there is less opportunity to replace those students particularly where there are unit sequencing and classroom allocation considerations. It means that if we started the cohort with 20 students and calculated a 30% return on trainer costs and we lose 30% or 6 students, our 30% margin return on trainer costs is diminished significantly if not evaporated. This is particularly true when most course fees are calculated based on a minimum number of students required to break even. If we fall below that break even threshold, we end up delivering the course at a loss. This obviously will depend on how you have structured your fee collection, keeping in mind the requirement to limit your collection of fees in advance (click). My point here is, in a cohort delivery model, the profit ratio can reduce with students leaving the cohort and sometimes there is little the RTO can do to replace those students in the cohort due to the need for a sequenced and synchronous delivery. How does a new student join the course in the middle or later stages of the course? It doesn’t work and keep in mind, that the cohort still requires allocation of the same trainer ratio, still requires the same classroom, still requires the same equipment, but it is a smaller cohort and regardless, we need to see the course through and deliver on our commitment to those remaining students.
Now let’s give the same consideration for the delivery of the course under a rolling enrolment. If the student / trainer ratio was 20:1, under a rolling enrolment model, it can take some time to build-up to our preferred student / trainer ratio. This is obviously due to the fact that we are enrolling students gradually over time. If we have students that withdraw from the course; unlike the cohort model, we have the opportunity to replace students into the course as vacancies appear. This means that we not only generate a more continuous revenue stream from enrolments, but we maximise the services being delivered from our training investment to the maximum number of learners. Yes, this can be less efficient in the beginning, but once you have reached the target number of enrolments, it is more efficient moving forward. When I explain this dynamic to clients, it can be a bit of a lightbulb moment and often results in them choosing a rolling enrolment model and designing the course around this reality. There are many things in an RTO operation that you have control over. Students deciding to exit the course early due to something happening in their life, is not one of them. You need to work out how to convert this reality into an opportunity. Using a rolling enrolment is one way to do this. As soon as a student exists a course, it creates a vacancy that we can fill with a new enrolment; therefore we keep the maximum number of students in front of the trainer all of the time, hopefully!
What’s that? I hear you thinking that the success of this will depend on whether the training is being delivered as a synchronous or asynchronous delivery and on the unit sequencing requirements. I agree, read on.
Sequencing and entry points
The design of any vocational education and training course (qualification) must include consideration of unit sequencing. This is 101 course design. A dead giveaway in identifying that an RTO needs help is when I get given a TAS to review and the sequence of unit delivery is straight out of the qualification framework. Seriously, I am not joking! There are many methods of and considerations for selecting a sequence to the unit delivery (maybe another article!). The most common method is what we call “simple to complex”. This involves selecting the delivery sequence of the units of competency based on what the student needs to learn first to lay a competency foundation before they move onto more complex tasks. In my early days, we would refer to this as prioritising the underpinning knowledge and skills. A great example of this are qualifications such as Diploma of Information Technology, Diploma of Aviation (Commercial Pilot) and Certificate III in Light Vehicle Mechanical Technology. Before you can diagnose and repair light vehicle engines, you really need to be competent in using and maintaining tools and equipment in an automotive workshop. Before you can fly an aircraft, you need to have a foundation knowledge of air law, aerodynamics and avionics, etc. The automotive example is a great example because the unit “Diagnose and repair light vehicle engines” has no pre-requisites but it is obvious to anyone that before I can repair engines, I need to be able to use tools. Therefore, the unit on using tools needs to be sequenced accordingly.
So, I point this out because, if your course has a “high sequence burden” such as the above, you can see that a rolling (individual) enrolment would only work where the qualification is being delivered where the student commences from unit one and completes the units in sequence (individually). This is common in pure workplace delivery of apprenticeships in static workplaces. Think hairdressing, automotive technician or metal engineering fabrication as examples of this. If we consider the same sequence limitation in a cohort delivery (at the RTO premises) and units are being delivered according to a set schedule (calendar), a student joining the existing cohort would need to commence with a unit that is likely too complex and they would struggle. The only option for this student is to wait for the next course commencement date when they can commence from the start of the course. This is never a successful strategy, telling a person making an enquiry about a course to come back is six months is not a good idea. This inability to commence the student fairly quickly is an enrolment and business disaster. We want to accept that students enrolment (if appropriate to do so) and commence them straight away. That is good for them, it is good for their current or future employer and is good business.
Most qualifications have an aspect of this “sequence burden” although some more than others. Sometimes when the client is determined to use a rolling enrolment model, they may choose to have the student complete a couple of mandatory units upfront individually before joining the cohort. Sometimes just a few units completed individually is enough of a foundation to enable the student to enter the course at any point. I am working with a client designing a Diploma of Counselling at the moment using this very strategy. Using a rolling enrolment, the student will complete two units focusing on ethics and counselling theory via individual study (asynchronous) and after these have been completed the student will join the cohort (synchronous) at whatever unit is commencing next according to the course schedule. This is a great example of having your cake and eating it too. I call this an individual foundation module and it is a great option if the nature of the units allow this. There are many qualifications where there is virtually no sequence burden or is very low. In this case, you can deliver the course according to a set schedule (giving you all those benefits) and enrol students using a rolling enrolment with entry points set to when each unit is scheduled to commence. Many qualifications in the business services training packages are like this where there is no real interdependence between the units of competency. An almost textbook example of this is the qualifications on Leadership and Management mentioned earlier where each unit of competency can be delivered quite independently without impacting the quality of training delivery or compromising the logical learning sequence.
Is there a necessary sequence required for your training? This is a key consideration in deciding if you can enrol students as a cohort or individually as a rolling enrolment. Do this analysis early and consult subject matter experts in industry to determine if a strict sequence is required. The following is provided as a very broad guide without taking into account the many local considerations that can exist:
- asynchronous delivery = rolling enrolment (most of the time)
- synchronous delivery with high sequence burden = cohort enrolment
- synchronous delivery with low sequence burden = rolling enrolment
Graduation
One often overlooked side effect of choosing a rolling enrolment is that because students are starting at different times, we have students finishing at different times. Therefore, this makes it very difficult to hold that classic graduation event that many of our clients love. Some clients will schedule two graduation events each year just so they can invite students who have completed to come back and attend graduation. Seriously, for some clients, these graduation events are just as important as the actual course. Not having a fancy graduation event is simply not even a consideration. So, if I am describing you (performing arts, fashion, beauty, graphic design), then you may be better sticking with the cohort enrolment model. An alternative is to come up with a nice way to celebrate the graduation of each student individually as they occur, but,,,,, as I write that, I can almost hear some of my clients telling me to wash my mouth out with soap! Heaven forbid Joe, what are you thinking!! Anyway, just food for thought.😊
Compliance
There are so many RTO standards/clauses which touch the enrolment process such as:
- 4.1 – Marketing
- 5.1 – Pre-enrolment screening / engagement
- 5.2 – Pre-enrolment information on services to be provided
- 5.3 – Pre-enrolment information on fees, refunds and consumer rights
- 7.3 – Limiting the fees paid in advance of services being delivered
- 1.2 – Determining the amount of training required for each learner
- 1.7 – Identifying learner support requirements
- 3.5 – Identifying credit transfer eligibility
- 3.6 – Collecting and verifying the USI
All of these will happen (or at least will be commenced) before the student commences training. Obviously the collection and verification of the USI is not technically required until the issuance of an AQF certificate, but the vast majority of RTOs will complete this as part of an enrolment process. I recon I spend about 20% of all of my consulting life just talking about enrolment requirements. It is likely that an RTO will use a combination of different enrolment models each adapted for the unique requirements of each course. Totally fine. I would recommend that you document these different enrolment pathways in your policy and procedure so you can apply suitable quality control to these important processes. You need to have a systematic approach to how you advertise and engage with prospective learners’ prior to their enrolment. You need to have systematic arrangements to supply pre-enrolment information and this should be checked against the standards to ensure that the minimum information is being provided.
You need to build into the process all the necessary administrative checks to ensure these are completed every time. You can (and should) adapt these enrolment processes and arrangements for different learner cohorts such as apprenticeship / traineeship enrolments (funded), fee-for-service short course enrolments, fee-for-service qualification enrolments, enterprise enrolments, etc. Each of these different groups will approach and make their way to training in a different way with different requirements. The most important take away here, map and document the process and get systematic! Develop flow diagrams and written procedures in support of these different enrolment pathways. Develop checklists and cheat-sheets that the admin team can rely on to ensure they are not missing anything. Structure your documentation/systems to ensure that all of the required information, acknowledgements and declarations are captured during the process. Provide training to your team on the enrolment processes and establish the links with upstream and downstream processes such as marketing and student induction to manage the efficiency with these important internal customers. When we talk about a “systematic approach” this is what we are talking about. If you are interested in a systems approach to self assurance, this article is worth a read (click).
In conclusion
Look, I could have continued writing on this subject for ever. So much to talk about! Hopefully this provides you enough information just to be dangerous. Selecting the right enrolment model is fundamental to so many aspects of running an RTO. The choice that you make can have an impact on the learning outcomes achieved by students and/or the profitability of the services being delivered.
If I were to identify what I think is my preferred enrolment model, I would have to say a rolling enrolment into a synchronous delivery as long as you can satisfy the sequence issues. I think this gives you the best of both worlds in terms of the quality/efficiency, the peer support, top-up enrolments, et cetera.
I hope this article has sparked some thoughts about your current or planned enrolment model. Always remember that, prior planning and preparation prevents piss poor performance. Do the analysis on your enrolment needs for each course and make the right choice for your students and your business.
Good training,
Joe Newbery
Published: 22nd December 2021
Copyright © Newbery Consulting 2021. All rights reserved.
VET News – 25th November 2021
|
Enrolment Models
When we begin working with a client to develop a course offering, one of the very first considerations is the enrolment model that is best suited to the course delivery. It is such an important early consideration and it is amazing to me that there doesn’t seem to be any written guidance for RTOs on this subject. In this article, I share my experience having reviewed, audited, built, advised on many hundreds of enrolment models and pathways with clients over almost two decades as a VET consultant. My hope in providing this information is that you can give informed consideration to your enrolment model so that it works not only for your business but results in a better and more supported learning experience for students. It is another one of those things in an RTO where we are trying to find that sweet spot between quality and efficiency.
VET News – 28th October 2021
|
VET News – 14th October 2021
|
Newbery RTO Compliance Quiz
Are you a guru in RTO compliance? It’s time to put yourself to the test and take the Newbery Compliance Quiz. This 10 question quiz will be refreshed once each fortnight with new random questions drawn from a bank of over 200 questions and growing.
Test your knowledge and understanding of RTO compliance. The quiz is time limited and you have only 5 minutes, which is actually heaps of time if you know your stuff. Good luck.
Newbery Compliance Quiz
VET News – 23rd September 2021
|
VET News – 2nd September 2021
|
RTO Self-assurance
Self-assurance simply means to be confident. It means having confidence in your systems to ensure your compliance with regulatory requirements and having confidence in your service delivery and resilience. So, it’s not just about compliance. Being self-assured means that we can have confidence in the whole business with quality service delivery as the primary objective and compliance achieved as a consequence of systems working together. This focus on systems and taking a “systems approach” to viewing and managing your RTO is critical to enable self-assurance. We need to shift the thinking from viewing the RTO operation as a lineal service delivery operation from marketing to completion, to view the RTO as a system of interacting components.
A systems approach to RTO self-assurance
A systems approach to RTO self-assurance
There is an increasing demand from clients and others in the sector who are wanting to establish a system of self-assurance within their RTO. This interest is in response to messaging by ASQA encouraging providers to adopt a self-assurance approach to the management of their RTO operation. ASQA undertook consultation in August 2020 and released a paper in Nov 2020 summarising the feedback it received (click). This paper seemed to promote initiatives such as internal audits, collecting student feedback, and validation. This feedback seems to focus on what I consider are self-assurance related “activities” rather than proposing a model for holistic self-assurance that may have emerged from the consultation.
Almost 15 months after the conclusion of this consultation and the National VET Regulator has not yet published tools or guidance on how an RTO should approach self-assurance. In June 2021, ASQA promised to “share enhanced self-assurance tools” in the coming 12 months! Clearly work is happening but it seems to be taking a very long time for the regulator to provide it’s promised guidance. Meanwhile, the early adopters are just wanting to get on with it, hence, the reason for this article. My sincere hope for the sector is that, when ASQA do publish their “enhanced self-assurance tools”, I hope that this is more than just some type of enhanced self-assessment tool or validation tool or student survey tool. I hope it will provide a model for holistic self-assurance that supports all parts of the RTO operation.
Lets not forget the past
We are not re-inventing the wheel here. We are essentially talking about quality management which has been around since the 1930s and subsequently spread to the manufacturing industry and was particularly evolved by the Japanese motor production industry in the 1950s and 60s. I was introduced to Total Quality Management by my brother Paul in the context of the textiles and laundry industry and thanks to his infectious enthusiasm and belief, I had my “light-bulb moment”. Of course, these days we have a swag of “quality management systems” and standards out there such as the International Standards Organisation library of standards of most note the ISO 9001 “family” of quality management standards. We should also not leave out Six Sigma which is a well-accepted model for quality control informed by data collection and measurement.
We also should mention the VET sector’s previous attempts at introducing quality improvement which commenced in 2005 with the release of the AQTF standard at the time. The AQTF 2005 required RTOs to “collect and analyse stakeholder and client feedback and satisfaction data on the services it provides as the basis for improvement” and to “develop and implement written procedures relating to acting on opportunities for improvement” (Clause 1.9 and 1.10). This was expanded significantly in the AQTF 2007 standards (Clause 1.1, 2.1 and 3.1) by requiring the RTO to “collect, analyses and act on relevant data for continuous improvement of training and assessment and client services” as well as requiring the RTO to “use a systematic and continuous improvement approach to the management of operations”. This focus on the collection and analysis of data was then and is still critical to enabling continuous improvement. I find that some clients can get a little lost in this reference to “data” and I think moving forward we need to recognise that language is so important to either enabling or disabling adoption of policy. I explain that by “data” it simply means information or outcomes that can flow from various monitoring activities such as student surveys, assessment quality checks, spot audits, trainer feedback, assessment validation, to name just a few. These activities will often result in outcomes or findings which is the information we analyse to identify opportunities for improvement.
Those who have been in the sector from this time will recall how much focus was given to continuous improvement back in those days. When I undertook regulatory audits over these years, I would ask to see the RTOs continuous improvement policy and register of continuous improvement actions. I would then validate a sample of these improvements by requesting evidence of their implementation. When I think back about that time now, it all seems quite superficial but, maybe these were the necessary early steps to introduce the concept of continuous improvement and quality management to the sector. As a consultant in those days, I spent a significant amount of my time guiding clients in the establishment of their continuous improvement model. In the current standards released in 2015, there is clause 2.2 which is similar to previous standards which requires a systematic approach to continuously improve.
We need to acknowledge that clause 2.2 in the current standards has virtually not been included in an ASQA audit scope since 2016 when ASQA excluded this clause and many others from its much vaunted “student-centered audit model”. In 2016, the regulator’s focus on continuous improvement essentially disappeared. I know that in many RTOs the continuous improvement arrangements that were gradually developed through the period of 2005 – 2015 have now unfortunately fallen away. The regulator’s decision to exclude clause 2.2 from the student-centered audit model is likely to be a key barrier in moving forward with an even higher expectation of self-assurance. In many cases (not all), the key “sector wide” learnings about continuous improvement process forged over those years, the information systems to manage CI, the collection and analysis of information and the regular CI meetings have been discontinued. When a client says to me these days that they will enter a finding into their continuous improvement register and discuss at the next management meeting, my ears prick-up and I get a little burst of joy that the client still has these arrangements in place. It will be very challenging to regain this lost continuous improvement capability for many providers but, if we really want to move toward self-assurance, this is a good place to start.
View your RTO operation as a system
Self-assurance simply means to be confident. It means having confidence in your systems to ensure your compliance with regulatory requirements and having confidence in your service delivery and resilience. So, it’s not just about compliance. Being self-assured means that we can have confidence in the whole business with quality service delivery as the primary objective and compliance achieved as a consequence of systems working together. This focus on systems and taking a “systems approach” to viewing and managing your RTO is critical to enable self-assurance.
We need to shift the thinking from viewing the RTO operation as a lineal service delivery operation from marketing to completion, to view the RTO as a system of interacting components. We need to recognise that these components are team members performing their relevant tasks such as training, admin support, marketing, compliance, course design, et cetera. These team members all have points of interaction with each other. As an example, a course designer will interact with marketing, a trainer will interact with admin support. When the trainer submits an assessment to admin support for a quality check and the recording of results, this is an interaction of two components (internal customers) as part of the overall RTO system.
I identify the following three components to the RTO System:
- Enrolment and Completion – Standard 4, 5 and 3
- Training and Assessment – Standard 1
- Governance and Administration – Standard 2, 6, 7, and 8
Viewing the RTO operation as a system enables systems thinking about how these components work together and are interconnected. This is very different from a more traditional view of the RTO operation as a lineal process along the student pathway. Applying systems thinking recognises that each team member within these components is relying on other team members from other components. It is not possible to work in isolation. We all depend on each other to ensure the system is working to achieve the best possible outcomes. Within the system everyone’s job is as equally important.
The points where the work intersects are critical production points where team members will need to regularly communicate to set local rules and expectations for the exchange of work with each other. This is often referred to as managing the internal customer. As an example, the trainer is a customer of the admin team. The trainer will deliver their completed assessment to the admin team. The admin team will review the assessment as part of a quality control process (hopefully). If the admin team find that the assessment is incomplete, they will return the assessment to the trainer for remediation. This wastes time and energy, can lead to friction, delays outcomes being reported, delays revenue being claimed, delays certificates being issued and of course is a potential non-compliance. This can be resolved by the trainer and the admin team communicating with each other about each other’s needs to make the process more efficient.
Hopefully this results in the trainer having a better understanding of how they need to better prepare their work for submission to the admin team to improve the process efficiency. It may also resolve any misinterpretations by the admin team that is leading to work being unnecessarily held up in assessment quality control. It is always a two way street. An important part of systems thinking is identifying these critical production points and getting those involved talking to identify ways to improve both the quality and efficiency. In systems thinking, we appreciate the critically important part that everyone performs in the system. If any of those components fall over, it will impact on the whole system. Everyone needs to be trained and informed about their duties and be accountable for their responsibilities. Everyone needs to consult with their internal customers to set and understand expectations. Everyone needs to view their role as an important part of the system as a whole.
An RTO self-assurance model
With an understanding of the RTO system, we can now move to build a self-assurance model to compliment the system. I identify three important mechanisms of an RTO self-assurance model. These include:
- assurance coordination,
- a calendar of assurance activities, and
- local assurance actions.
Lets unpack these.
Assurance coordination.
Assurance coordination may occur during a management meeting or other regular coordination meeting. It may be conducted in any format but must be a regular meeting such as once per week or fortnight. Those responsible for assurance coordination will receive the information and reports of opportunities for improvement that are flowing from the assurance activities and actions and will consider these in a consultative way to decide on what action to take regarding improvement opportunities. I frame this as “coordination” because there does need to be management oversight and coordination of the self-assurance model. Some opportunities for improvement are simply not possible at the time due to resourcing constraints and management need to balance improvement activity with production activity.
Assurance coordination is ideally constituted by your regular management or team meeting attendees. Infact, I would strongly recommend that your self-assurance management be integrated with your regular management or team meeting. Particularly for small to medium sized RTOs, I do not advocate the establishment of separate committees or separate meeting arrangements. Try and keep it integrated with your usual meeting. For a large RTO, it may be best to establish a separate meeting or committee due to the more complex operational requirements and utilise a self-organising approach with assurance coordination at separate campuses or business units.
To coordinate self-assurance, you will need an information system to enter and manage the improvement actions which are agreed for implementation. Most of these improvements are not simple and many will stay open for many weeks and sometimes months while those responsible for implementation will report back about their progress. An “information system” may be as simple as a Word doc with a table to record improvement initiatives and actions. There are of course various software platforms that are available for this purpose at a cost. Your RTO student management system may also have an integrated quality management system build in like our own RTO Data Cloud. In the first instance, I recommend keeping it very simple and consider more sophisticated options once you have some runs on the board. I have seen some very successful continuous improvement systems using just a spreadsheet to record improvement initiatives and actions.
I do suggest that you adjust your meeting agenda to include self-assurance as a key meeting agenda item. This should include a sub-agenda item to review and discuss all new opportunities for improvement that have been submitted. Deal with these one at a time unless there is a common theme. Discuss the options and consider the need for more information prior to making a decision. Once a decision is made, be very clear in your direction. If the improvement is not identified for action, then provide the feedback to those who suggested it. If the improvement is agreed for action, then allocate a champion as the person responsible, allocate resources, agree on a timeframe and reporting arrangements, identify any coordination that is required across your “system”. This is particularly important to implement improvement actions in consultation with the relevant internal customers to achieve the maximum benefit. I might just make the point here that, it often occurs that new improvement opportunities may link or overlap with current improvement actions that are already underway, so you may consider linking these or merging these for more efficient coordination.
After you have considered all new opportunities for improvement, you can then move to the next sub-agenda item which should be to systematically review all open improvement initiative that are underway. It is important to work through these and consider their progress, give advice to those responsible, adjust resourcing if required, agree on revised timelines and reporting arrangements if necessary. The goal eventually is to close these actions and appreciate the impact of the improvement on the system. But sometimes this takes time, resources and coordination and it is the job of assurance coordination to provide that. This is also a great opportunity for recognition. We should recognise those that have carried through with the actions and have achieved the improvement. These people are the champions of self-assurance.
Calendar of Assurance Activities.
A calendar of assurance activities is a very basic concept that can have a massive impact on your overall management and coordination of the RTO system. This is simply a list of activities or events that need to occur throughout the year to meet quality assurance objectives. By this I mean everything from mandatory obligations that are part of the VET quality framework to the assurance monitoring activities and even the operational events that need to regularly occur. Basically, anything that can be scheduled into a calendar at the organisational level should be to recognise its importance and necessity. In many ways, you can think of this like the self-assurance engine that is ticking along in the background keeping everything else moving.
The following is just a snippet of the type of events that you may consider for your calendar of assurance activities:
- Professional development activities,
- Assessment validation events,
- Mandatory reporting,
- Policy and procedure review,
- Third party monitoring activities,
- Internal audits and spot checks,
- Assessment moderation activities,
- Training and assessment strategy review
- Delivery site inspections and audits,
- Industry consultation events and activities,
- Management and team meetings,
- Annual trainer survey,
- Information systems review,
- Trainer competency and currency audit
- Marketing and enrolment review,
- Regulatory information review,
- Fees and payment review, and
- Financial reporting
Clearly this is not an exhaustive list, and these assurance activities will be different for every RTO depending on its size and operating context. It is also the case that many of these activities will be reoccurring. As an example, I usually recommend that a client schedule staff professional development at lease three times per year. Management team meeting will be a regular occurrence in the calendar and things like “third party monitoring” is a broad description for a whole bunch of activities that will be scheduled throughout the year. You need to adapt your calendar of assurance activities to suit your business. Putting these important events into a calendar and planning the year ahead is an awesome way of getting organised to ensure these things happen. Not sure who coined the saying “if you fail to plan, you plan to fail” but this is completely true when it comes to a compliant and efficient RTO operation. Put it in the calendar and make the time and resources to ensure these activities occur.
The key point to conducting assurance activities is this, there will be outcomes that result from these activities that are valuable sources of information and potential opportunities for improvement. As an example, assessment validation may result in findings in relation to assessment practices that need to be improved or a delivery site audit may identify deficiencies in equipment availability at the site. These outcomes will feed into the forum for assurance coordination to be considered as opportunities for improvement. If this is undertaken properly and with purpose, there will be a steady stream of improvement opportunities to consider and act on as appropriate as the year progresses.
Local Assurance Actions.
Local assurance actions are the individual tasks that compliment self-assurance and are performed by individual team members in the normal course of their work. An example of this is the trainer participating in professional development to maintain evidence of their ongoing development of their training and assessment skills or a member of the admin team undertaking a quality check on completed assessment tools as part of the assessment quality control. Everyone has an important job to perform in an RTO from the newest team member to senior management. There are certain aspects of these jobs that have a direct relationship to compliance and self-assurance. It is important to note, that these actions should not be confused with Calendar Assurance Activities. Assurance activities are more organisation directed or collective activities, where assurance actions are the individual responsibility of each person during their work.
It is valuable to recognise these tasks as having an important relationship to self-assurance and compliance. Doing so, deepens each individual’s responsibility for compliance and reinforces the concept that compliance is everyone’s responsibility. It is not expected that significant opportunities for improvement will result from local assurance action, although each team member is certainly encouraged to report opportunities for improvement if these are identified during the normal performance of work.
Examples of local assurance actions are:
- Training and Assessment (Clause 1):
- Delivery of a sufficient amount of training
- Delivery in accordance with the training package
- Sufficient resourcing of training and assessment
- Engagement with industry
- Monitor and support learners
- Collection and recording of sufficient assessment evidence
- Accurate reporting of assessment outcomes
- Participating in assessment validation and moderation
- Verification of trainer competency and currency
- Maintenance of trainer industry currency
- Participating in professional development on VET
- Accurate transitioning of training products
- Enrolment and Completion (Clauses 3, 4, 5):
- Preparation and maintenance of marketing material
- Review and approval of marketing material
- Preparation and maintenance of pre enrolment information
- Review and approval of pre enrolment information
- Engagement with learners to determine their needs
- Administering applications for credit transfer
- Verifying unique student identifiers
- Post commencement survey of learners
- Conducting assessment quality control
- Quality control of AQF certificate issuance
- Post completion survey of learners
- Governance and administration (Clauses 2, 6, 7, 8):
- Coordination of self-assurance activities and meetings
- Administration of third party arrangements
- Monitoring of third party delivery of services
- Administration of complaints and appeals
- Management of organisational financial performance
- Management of VET data collection and reporting
- Management of organisation insurance protection
- Keeping the NVR informed of material changes
- Responding to requests from the NVR
- Administer any mandatory reports or declaration
- Maintain legislative compliance arrangements
Implementing self-assurance
The following steps should be taken to implement this system of self-assurance:
- Present the concepts of this article to your team in a workshop and brainstorm how you might adapt this system of self-assurance to your unique organisation.
- Identify a forum for assurance coordination and make the appropriate changes to the meeting structure, agenda and put in place the supporting information systems. This can be as simple as a spreadsheet.
- Draft a calendar of self-assurance activities for commencement in January 2022. Use some of the activities I have suggested in this article where appropriate. Give yourself the next four months to educate team members and put in place the arrangements to undertake self-assurance activities. Put in place reporting arrangements to capture the valuable outcomes from these activities.
- Provide a program of professional development to your organisation over the next four months on your self-assurance approach. Place a lot of emphasis on the local self-assurance actions that they are all responsible for. Reinforce individual responsibility in the context of a shared goal. Introduce the basics of quality management principles and systems thinking. Keep this fairly light and you will be amazed at how this can empower individuals. Watch the champions emerge.
- Kick off your system of self-assurance with a little event. You want people to recognise that this is the start of something special that they are part of. Be realistic that there will be challenges and interruptions but reaffirm the organisation’s commitment to stay on task with this.
- Schedule quarterly team meetings to bring everyone together to talk about how things are going and to discuss how the implementation can be improved. Keep in mind that this system is owned by everyone, so everyone has a voice. Reinforce the shared goals of the organisation.
- Don’t be afraid to step back and allow your champions to step forward. One of the most amazing things about quality management and systems thinking is that is can be a light-bulb moment for some people. Suddenly they see the organisation as an interconnected system and they can see where the choke points are and the inefficiencies.
- Give yourself one year of running your self-assurance system and then conduct a review with the team. Take note of everything that has been achieved over the year but also take note at how the team are now more engaged in the organisation, how they have an ownership in achieving continuous improvement.
In conclusion
In this article, we have recognised the multiple layers to self-assurance within the RTO System. We have our self-assurance engine ticking along with our calendar of self-assurance activities (macro layer). This helps us to meet our compliance obligations and to schedule and conduct the monitoring activities needed to identify opportunities for improvement. We have every team member focusing on the performance of their own local self-assurance actions during the normal performance of their work. Each team member acutely aware of their responsibility to perform these actions to promote quality and efficiency and to manage the exchange of work with internal customers (micro level). In the middle of our system, we have assurance coordination reviewing the emerging opportunities for improvement and providing the direction to act on these where appropriate and coordinating the conduct of the calendar of assurance activities.
Lets be clear, this stuff is not easy, but nothing that pushes us to improve ever is. You will stumble at first and make mistakes that are valuable lessons to improve as you move forward. Remember that, self-assurance means having confidence in your service delivery and your resilience. Being self-assured means that we can have confidence in the whole business with quality service delivery as the primary objective and compliance achieved as a consequence of working together. Give yourself this opportunity.
Good training,
Joe Newbery
Published: 13th August 2021
Copyright © Newbery Consulting 2021. All rights reserved.
VET News – 13th August 2021
|
VET News – 29th July 2021
|
VET News – 14th July 2021
|
Observation Assessment
Observation assessment is one of those classic functions within the RTO where there is a constant competitive dynamic between quality and efficiency. It is efficient to purchase commercially designed assessment tools and not waste additional time and resources on pre-assessment validation and customisation and to allow these assessment tools to be administered by assessors without oversight. Of course, this generally results in assessment tools being utilised which were not compliant to begin with and assessment recorded by tick and flick. I have just described the single most prominent systemic risk to the quality and reputation of VET. On the quality side of the dynamic, it requires an investment in time to validate and improve the observation assessment design, to educate trainers about their use and to establish assessment quality controls to ensure that no assessment gets through to outcome reporting unless it is right.
Observation Assessment
Observation Assessment
I spend a lot of time talking to clients about their observation assessments. It blows me away that this single topic which is so fundamental to the core services we provide in vocational education and training and yet it is not well understood. It is by far one of the most common non-compliances that I see on a regular basis in both the work we do, the audit reports generated by the national regulator and funding authorities. To provide an insight to this, the following are some of the common non-compliances related to observation assessments:
- The assessment does not address all performance criteria (validity)
- The assessment does not address the requirements of the performance evidence (validity)
- The criteria used in support of the observation do not describe observable behaviours (validity and reliability)
- There is insufficient benchmarking to support the reliability of the observation assessment (reliability)
- There is insufficient evidence recorded by the assessor to provide valid evidence (validity and sufficiency)
- The candidate was not assessed on the required number of occasions (validity and sufficiency)
- The observation criteria do not align to the task requirements (validity)
Observation assessment is one of those classic functions within the RTO where there is a constant competitive dynamic between quality and efficiency. It is efficient to purchase commercially designed assessment tools and not waste additional time and resources on pre-assessment validation and customisation and to allow these assessment tools to be administered by assessors without oversight. Of course, this generally results in assessment tools being utilised which were not compliant to begin with and assessment recorded by tick and flick. I have just described the single most prominent systemic risk to the quality and reputation of VET. On the quality side of the dynamic, it requires an investment in time to validate and improve the observation assessment design, to educate trainers about their use and to establish assessment quality controls to ensure that no assessment gets through to outcome reporting unless it is right. Choosing to take the quality pathway can be hard work and expensive, no question. Where an RTO chooses to positions itself in this option between quality and efficiency says a lot about the RTO owner and the culture of the organisation. Some RTOs are stuck in the efficiency model and are trying to claw their way back to quality. These can be the most rewarding clients to work with as we help them to improve their assessment system. Where does your RTO sit within this option between assessment quality and assessment efficiency?
In this article, I am going to focus on some specific topics and issues which are central to understanding the role and function of observation assessment. These include:
- The role of criterion referenced assessment
- Recognising the need for observation assessment
- Benchmarking in support of reliability
- Recording observation evidence
- Inconsistent regulation
Criterion referenced assessment
It is not possible to understand the requirements of observation assessment without understanding criterion referenced assessment and the role it plays in the observation. It was in the very late 1980s that Australia adopted our current competency-based training and assessment model. The actual date is difficult to pin down as it was a gradual adoption over time. The work of the National Training Board in 1988-89 and the development of “occupational standards” was instrumental in the evolution of competency standards and the establishment of performance criteria as the basis for the assessment. The more commonly used definition of criterion referenced assessment is provided by Brown (1988) whom defined criterion referenced assessment as:
“An evaluative description of the qualities which are to be assessed (e.g. an account of what pupils know and can do) without reference to the performance of others.“
Brown, S. (1988) ‘Criterion referenced assessment: what role for research?’ in Black, H.D. and Dockerell, W.D., New developments in educational assessment, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Monograph series no. 3, pp. 1-14.
The key thing to know about criterion reference assessment is that it focusses on the assessment of the candidate’s individual performance against specified criteria. In our competency-based assessment model, these criteria are first and foremost the performance criteria from the relevant unit of competency in addition to other criteria that may be included based on the assessment context. As an example, we may include additional criteria relevant to a specific workplace requirement or equipment safety requirement. The criteria must be expressed in a way that makes them observable based on the required behaviour of the candidate. For some units of competency, the performance criteria are already expressed in a way that lends them to be quite observable. I’m going to use the unit of competency AHCNSY206 – Care for nursery plants as the basis in this article to provide examples. It’s worth noting that this unit of competency is primarily included within certificate II qualifications and therefore the tasks identified within the unit of competency are typically performed under supervision with limited autonomy. As an example, performance criteria 2.6 “Stake and tie plants using the required materials and according to instructions”. This criteria implies that the person being assessed would have been provided very clear work instructions and is been assessed in their skills for staking and tying plants using the required materials. Under a criterion referenced assessment model we are simply asking the question, did the candidate perform this task correctly (as instructed). The answer is either Yes or No. If the candidate can demonstrate satisfactory performance of all criteria specified in the unit of competency, then they can be assessed as competent.
I just want to make a key point here; it is the performance criteria that are the primary basis for the observation. We need to make sure that all of the performance criteria are being assessed through an observation of the candidate’s work. It is quite common for me to receive an audit report from a client which identifies that the RTO is non-compliant because not all performance criteria have been assessed and the audit report will usually list these. Of course, it is not possible to observe a candidate’s performance based on a particular performance criterion, if the assessment task did not require the candidate to perform the task described in the performance criteria in the first place. So, this obviously means that the assessment task itself needs to be valid so that it creates the opportunity for these performance criteria to be observed. This may mean that you need to have multiple observation tools which cover all performance criteria because the unit of competency may need to be assessed over a series of performance assessment tasks. In the case of our unit of competency for caring for nursery plants, we might design one assessment task around element of competency 1 and 2 (preparing for and maintaining nursery plants) and a separate assessment task around element of competency 3 (Complete nursery plant maintenance operations). But, the absolute key point to take away from this section is that, all of the performance criteria must be integrated into the observation tools in support of these tasks and customised for the context of the assessment and complemented with any additional workplace or enterprise requirements. These performance criteria are the basis for the criterion referenced assessment of the candidate’s performance. Make sure they are all covered in the assessment task and the observation tool.
All units of competency require observation assessment
I often make the point when presenting information or talking to clients that every unit of competency requires observation assessment. I sometimes receive these commercial assessment resources from a client where the assessment is basically theoretical. I am sure you have experienced this yourself. The assessment is asking lots of knowledge questions around how the candidate would do this and how the candidate would do that and these questions often require a written response which are simply marked using a marking guide as either correct or incorrect. This type of assessment is not valid as a performance assessment because it is only assessing the candidate’s knowledge and understanding of the task and is not assessing their performance ability to perform the task. It does not matter if you introduce case studies that present realistic workplace situations requiring the candidate to analyse and provide written responses based on the case study . This does not make the assessment task compliant; it simply is leading to the collection of more knowledge evidence and is not assessing the candidate’s ability to perform the task. This is a very common non-compliance. This is a really key point. If you want to assess a candidate in a unit of competency then you need to get the candidate to actually perform the task. That may be a practical task or it may be a cognitive analytical task but either way they actually need to do it and their performance needs to be observed. If you do not get the candidate to actually demonstrate the task then, your assessment will be non-compliant because it is not valid as a principle of assessment and the assessment evidence that you collect (such as the written response activity) is also not valid as a rule of evidence. It is that simple.
I just want to circle back to my opening sentence in this section. Every unit of competency requires observation assessment. The majority of units of competency fall into three different unit of competency types. We have demonstrable or practical units of competency such as AHCNSY206 – Care for nursery plants. We have cognitive or analytical units of competency such as AHCPCM508 – Develop an integrated pest management program and we have units which are a combination of both such as AHCWRK403 – Supervise work routines and staff performance. The valid evidence to collect and observe for caring for nursery plans is obviously observing the candidate perform the task in a plant nursery. The valid evidence to collect and observe for the candidate developing an integrated pest management program is the pest management program that the candidate has developed in response to the assessment task. The point I want to make here is that all of these units are equally observable. The key differences is that the first unit of competency would be observed the workplace or a simulated workplace by directly observing the candidate’s performance caring for nursery plants as opposed to the second unit of competency where I would be collecting a completed pest management program that the candidate has developed. In the cognitive unit, I would be using the basis of the performance criteria to assess the candidates work to determine if they have met the requirements of the criteria. This is often a difficult concept to grasp so I will provide an example. If I am assessing the candidate’s submitted integrated pest management program, I would be reviewing the documented program against performance criteria 2.2 which requires me to assess if the candidate has “Developed strategies to ensure minimal or no risk of resistance developing in the range of weeds, pests or diseases identified”. So, I would review the work submitted by the candidate using my subject matter expertise and I am critiquing the work to determine if the candidate has developed the appropriate strategies as required. I have an observation tool that specifies this requirement, and I can make a decision about the adequacy of the candidate strategies and then record the assessment outcome. The only difference between this model of observation assessment compared with the more practical task of caring for nursery plants is that I am assessing a document (as the students work). It is a document prepared by the candidate based on the task requirements and I am assessing the candidates work based on the criteria. The key takeaway here is that all units of competency require observation assessment including those where we are assessing the candidate’s practical performance and those where we are assessing a product (such as a document) produced by the candidate based on the task requirements. Under our criterion referenced assessment model, the candidates work must be assessed against the requirements of the performance criteria. If we can seriously fix that one issue alone in the VET sector today, we would have significantly less non-compliance.
Benchmarking in support of reliability
No doubt everyone is familiar with the concept of providing model answers or benchmark responses in support of written or verbal knowledge assessment. This seems to be a very widely accepted concept and a requirement that most RTOs are complying with these days. We know that if we are going to have a written knowledge assessment, we need to have the benchmark answers so that the assessor can compare the candidate’s responses to these benchmark answers and can mark the candidates work using a consistent standard. This relates to the principle of assessment of reliability. The principle of reliability requires that the RTO provide sufficient tools and guidance to the assessor to ensure that the same assessment standard is being applied not only between different candidates but more importantly between different assessors. In other words, all of the assessors need to be “on the same page” and applying the same standard. Now, here comes the key point. This requirement of needing to provide benchmark guidance is equally applicable to observation assessment. A very common non-compliance is where an auditor will make the assessment non-compliant because there is insufficient guidance available to the assessor to explain the expected observable behaviours that the candidate is required to demonstrate. So, lets look at an example and let’s use our unit on caring for nursery plants as an example. The performance criteria 2.6 required the following: Stake and tie plants using the required materials and according to instructions. We might express this as an observation criteria as follows: “Staked and tied plants using the correct technique and material in accordance with work instructions”. Now, if I want to ensure that every candidate is assessed to the same standard, I need to specify the requirements relating to this task as a guide to the assessor. This is commonly referred to as an observation benchmark. The observation benchmark for this one observation criteria might look something like the following (thanks WikiHow):
- Prepared material according to work instructions.
- Select a bamboo or wooden stake for small and medium sized tree or use a metal stake for a larger tree.
- Insert the stake on the windward side of the tree about 15–20 cm deep about 5 cm from the base of the primary branch.
- Locate the primary branch that supports the most growth.
- Tie the primary branch to the stake two thirds of the way up the stem using a material with a flat, broad surface, such as elastic or a wire inside of a rubber hose, tie the branch to several locations on the stake for firm support.
Now, I know some of you are thinking, far out, do we need to do this for every observation criteria and my answer is yes. A little trick that I use is to insert the observation tool itself into the assessor instructions document and populate the area usually used for written observations with your guidance to the assessor as the observation benchmark. Try to provide as much detail as possible and try and keep the guidance technical relating to the task requirements. It is a great activity to get trainers and assessors involved in brainstorming these benchmarks together as a form of assessment moderation. Beware, this can often lead to quite heated discussions and funny moments. Providing benchmarking in support of observation assessment is a requirement of the principle of assessment of reliability. If you do not have detailed benchmarking in support of your observation assessment, then your assessment is likely to be made non-compliant for not having sufficient reliability.
Recording observation evidence
We have all heard the term “tick and flick”. This is the practice where an assessor ticks all the boxes to identify the candidate completed everything correctly, makes no comment or observation and signs and dates the document (maybe) for submission. The problem with this practice is that it results in no recorded observation evidence to justify the assessment decision. From a compliance point of view, the assessment evidence is not sufficient or valid (rules of evidence). Ticking boxes is not recording valid assessment evidence. I sometimes have clients tell me that, they only record a comment if the candidate did not perform the task correctly to capture the areas for improvement. I totally get this and have no problem with the recording of evidence in a non-satisfactory outcome. But, this does not mean that where the candidate’s performance was also satisfactory, we can simply finalise the assessment without recording any assessor evidence. Recording assessor evidence is equally a requirement regardless of the assessment outcome. It does not matter if you have an internal policy that supports only recording non-compliant performance evidence. Just because you have a policy it does not make it ok. The key point is, we need evidence recorded by the assessor about their judgement of the candidate’s performance all the time not only on certain occasions. We need some recorded observations to verify that the candidate’s performance was actually assessed by the assessor and met the requirements of the unit of competency. If you are struggling to believe me, I would refer you to the national regulators general direction on the Retention requirements for completed student assessment items (click). The following is an extract:
Completed student assessment items include the actual piece(s) of work completed by a student or evidence of that work, including evidence collected for an RPL process. An assessor’s completed marking guide, criteria, and observation checklist for each student may be sufficient where it is not possible to retain the student’s actual work. However, the retained evidence must have enough detail to demonstrate the assessor’s judgement of the student’s performance against the standard required.
ASQA General Direction on the Retention requirements for completed student assessment items 2013
If you are not aware, a general direction is issued under the authority of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 and is a condition of registration for the RTO to comply with directions issued by the national regulator. Seriously, if this is not enough motivation then simply consider that not recording any observation evidence is going to lead to assessment evidence which is not sufficient or valid which makes it non-compliant under clause 1.8. I would also point out that most (if not all) State funding provider guidelines have very specific requirements to retain records of assessment that can verify the completion of assessment. Now, I know this is difficult and I know that it is particularly difficult to get trainers to comply with this requirement. I can only suggest that you implement a program of professional development to explain the requirement, maybe implement some work instructions and parallel to this implement a system of assessment quality control to ensure that assessments are not accepted without sufficient observation evidence. It may take some time to change the culture and practice but it’s definitely something that you cannot ignore. Clients will often ask me how much evidence needs to be recorded. In response to this question firstly, I recommend that you merge all of the cells on the right-hand side of the observation tool to create an open space for comments to be recorded generally. It is quite unrealistic to expect an assessor to record a micro little comment against every single criterion. I also recommend that the assessor needs to record a few basic comments about the candidate’s performance based on their technical observations. Encourage your assessors to focus their observations on the technical aspects of the candidate’s performance. We are not expecting the assessor to record war and peace, but we do want them to provide some reasonable comments to justify their decision. Do not accept the old argument from the assessor that says “I don’t know what to write” or my favourite, “What am I expected to write down in addition to the criteria that are already on the page”. Seriously, when a trainer says this to me, I simply question their professionalism and technical competence. My usual response to this question is to ask “So, from a subject matter expert perspective you have no value to bring to the assessment other than ticking the box?”. We seriously need to educate and reform these assessors or weed these guys out of the sector because they are putting your RTO at risk. I would absolutely recommend a program of professional development and consider implementing some guidelines and examples for assessors to use as a benchmark and implement a system of assessment quality control. We recently released a valuable webinar on assessment quality control if you would like more guidance on this (click).
Inconsistent regulation
A systemic threat to quality and compliant observation assessment is inconsistent regulation. Inconsistent regulation sends mixed messages to the regulated community. As an example, at least two or three times a month, I receive an audit report from a prospective client who has been made non-compliant for some of the issues identified in this article. These are audit reports generated by the national regulator and also increasingly by State funding authorities. This makes sense to me, and it reinforces the issues I have raised in this article and how important they are. Occasionally, I will encounter an RTO where I see significant evidence of absent observation assessment, not assessing all performance criteria or no recording of observation evidence. Of frustration to me is when the RTO may question my feedback because these issues “were not raised during our recent ASQA audit”. The problem here is what I call “lightweight auditors”. There are many ASQA auditors who are highly experienced and are experts in assessment. I worked with many of these auditors at NARA, VETAB and ASQA but, the lightweight auditors presents a significant risk to the sector because through their lack of experience and knowledge, they give a false understanding that poor assessment practices are acceptable. A lightweight auditor will give the RTO the benefit of the doubt where there is insufficient, or no observation evidence is being recorded. A lightweight auditor will not identify a non-compliance where the RTO has assessed practical requirements theoretically. A lightweight auditor does not understand the nuance of benchmarking practical observation. A lightweight auditor can be so impressed and distracted with the beautifully formatted documents that they fail to do a detailed review of the assessment validity. I am not joking. If you get one of these lightweight auditors during an audit then consider it a happy day but, do not make any false assumption that the standard they expect will equally be applied amongst more experienced auditors or that you should accept this standard yourself.
Sometimes, I can provide as much feedback as is possible and it may make little difference to the RTO’s behaviour but, when the same RTO gets an outcome of a performance assessment from a funding authority suspending their funding contract pending resolution of non-compliance with observation assessment, this tends to jolt them back into reality. The funding authorities in most States have very experienced auditors. ASQA has a constantly changing panel of auditors and increasingly some of these auditors have very little experience in VET or a deep understanding of assessment design. I do not see any evidence that ASQA is undertaking any significant steps to correct this. I think that ASQA assume that because the auditor has a TAE, they should understand the requirements of assessment, but the reality is they sometimes don’t. Beware of the lightweight auditor and do not make the mistake of benchmarking your compliance on their lack of experience. I get that everyone needs to start somewhere and these auditors may gain experience over time but, ASQA should get in front of this and consider introducing an enhanced auditor induction / development program that mitigates the risk of inconsistent regulation. ASQA needs to take a systemic approach to countering this systemic threat.
Good training,
Joe Newbery
Published: 30th June 2021
Copyright © Newbery Consulting 2021. All rights reserved.
VET News – 30th June 2021
|
VET News – 17th June 2021
|
VET News – 4th June 2021
|
VET News – 20th May 2021
|
VET News – 29th April 2021
|
VET News – 15th April 2021
|
ASQA’s new Regulatory Practices
ASQA’s new Regulatory Practices Published
Last week the national regulator released its revised regulatory practices model (click). This includes a revised approach for assessing RTO performance, for responding to non-compliance and for the review of decisions where required. Overall, the changes look consistent with the pathway ASQA has been on now for the last 12 months. I have a couple of observations:
- They have provided a lot of commentary to define “minor deficiencies” which is great. These are non-compliances that have negligible impact on students, can be readily fixed or are not systemic. These non-compliances will be noted in the audit report and the RTO will be allowed to address these as part of their self-assurance. I would have liked to see more guidance to describe and define the other levels of non-compliance such as those that result in an agreement to rectify, written direction, sanction, et cetera. ASQA should be required to allocate a specific level of non-compliance using a definition framework of non-compliance severity that is published and transparent.
- The range of regulatory responses in the new framework (in response to non-compliance) range from providing “information, education and advice” through to court action with “criminal proceedings”. Along this increasing continuum of responses, I do not see the normal rectification process or what has more recently been referred to as “providing a written response”. The regulatory responses seem to jump from issuing the RTO with a “Written Direction” straight to imposing “Conditions on Registration”. Conditions on an RTOs registration can include limiting your scope of registration and putting a cap on your enrolment numbers. That is a significant change. It will mean that any non-compliance that is greater than what we would normally consider minor (not extensive) will default to conditions being imposed on your RTO registration. It will likely result in a rise of applications to review these decisions (at $1000 a go). This is another reason we need definitions around the levels of non-compliance. The range of regulatory responses appears like a gradual increase but jumping from a written direction to conditions being imposed on your RTO is a big jump-up and overly punitive where the RTO could have simply provided evidence in a written response to demonstrate compliance. ASQA simply do not have sufficient reliability in their auditor decision making for a change like this to be fairly and evenly implemented. This will be one to watch.
- Another change worth noting is to the arrangements for applications to the review of decisions. The primary changes relate to the timeframes for making an application, responding to adverse notifications and for applying for an extension. I find the language a little unclear, but it seems to identify that if an extension is granted it will only be for 5 days. Previously, a typical extension would be up to 30 days and over Christmas could be 45 days, So, this is a significant change to what I predict will become an increasingly exercised option for RTOs who are subject to adverse conditions on their registration. The shorter timeframe will make it imperative that the RTO gets moving on the required changes the moment the “assessment” is complete. The days of pondering how to respond for three weeks are over.
- I cannot go past commenting on something of note in the “approach to assessing performance”. ASQA identify an increased focus on Clause 2.2 of the Standards for RTOs. Clause 2.2 is basically the continuous improvement clause. Many of you will remember when continuous improvement was introduced as a significant feature of the 2007 AQTF. It was sooooo important back in those days and remained a feature through AQTF 2010, the SNRs in 2011 and then in 2015, continuous improvement disappeared to obscurity particularly when ASQA introduced its Learner Focused Audit Model and didn’t include clause 2.2 on the audit scope. Well everything old it new again! ASQA identify that clause 2.2 will be included on the scope of RTO performance assessments. So, its time to dust off those continuous improvement registers and get back into considering CI in your management meetings, collecting that data, et cetera. We spent so much time educating clients about their approach to CI back in the noughties. I may need to bring some of those resources back into the light!
If you hang around this sector long enough you notice that all of these things go around in cycles. They say change is as good as a holiday and I am happy to go along with whatever the policy is on the day. There is one thing though I think needs to be said. It is fantastic for ASQA to come out with yet another new framework for its regulatory practices. I want to know what they are doing to ensure there is consistency between their various Auditors (Assessors). We still see gross variation in the decisions that auditors make in relation to particular clauses such as the volume of learning (1.1-1.2), reliability in support of assessment (1.8), validity of assessment evidence (1.8), vocational competency of trainers (1.13) and recognition of prior learning (1.8). I see no improvement in the audit consistency or reliability of ASQA auditors. It too often still comes down to the auditor’s own experience and interpretation. If you consider that; in light of, the blurry line that now exists between a written direction and the imposing of Conditions on an RTOs registration you can share my earlier concern. ASQA need to concentrate on improving their own decision processes with clear and transparent definitions of the levels of non-compliance and auditor moderation that actually results in agreed published positions and interpretations. The new regulatory framework is great, but lets get the fundamentals of regulation internally right within ASQA first.
Good training,
Joe Newbery
Published: 15th April 2021
Copyright © Newbery Consulting 2021. All rights reserved.
VET News – 1st April 2021
|
Assessment Quality Control
This webinar focuses on Clause 3.1 of the Standards for Registered Training Organisations which says: “3.1. The RTO issues AQF certification documentation only to a learner whom it has assessed as meeting the requirements of the training product as specified in the relevant training package or VET accredited course.” Assessment is the core business of an RTO. This webinar will explain the obligation for an RTO to conduct quality control of assessment before any assessment results are accepted. The webinar unpacks the responsibilities of the assessor and the admin team to ensure assessment documentation is accurately and sufficiently completed and in participating in the assessment quality control process.
RTO Registration Checklist
Registering an RTO is a complex undertaking. There are many requirements in the application evidence which rely on in-depth knowledge and experience in RTO compliance for a successful RTO registration. Our strong recommendation is to get some experienced advice, keep your application as simple as possible and be prepared to provide evidence of your readiness to deliver your nominated courses on request. Do not submit the application until you are ready. We have prepared this checklist to provide you a guide in navigating the RTO Registration process from start to finish. We hope this information is helpful and would ask that you consider our various products and services in the registration of your RTO.
RTO Registration Checklist
RTO Registration Checklist
Registering an RTO is a complex undertaking. There are many requirements in the application evidence which rely on in-depth knowledge and experience in RTO compliance for a successful RTO registration. My strong recommendation is to get some experienced advice, keep your application as simple as possible and be prepared to provide evidence of your readiness to deliver your nominated courses on request. Do not submit the application until you are ready. We have prepared this checklist to provide you a guide in navigating the RTO Registration process from start to finish. We hope this information is helpful and would ask that you consider our various products and services in the registration of your RTO.
- Familiarise yourself with the ASQA Application requirements.
Take the time in the beginning to familiarise yourself with the ASQA application requirements, including the ASQA Application Guide (click), the ASQA Self-assessment for initial RTO registration (click) and the General Direction for Resource requirements for Initial Registration (click). Reading these documents early gives you valuable context for everything else that will follow. You may also like to review some other articles on our website including RTO Setup Cost (click) and RTO Application Evidence Requirements (click). If you get through all of this information and you are still keen, that is a good sign.
- Undertake market research.
Research the market to identify the opportunity and viability of commencing a business as an RTO. This should include the identification of your target learner, specific training products and your preferred mode of delivery. Checkout this article provided by Business Queensland on methods for market research (click). Some useful information sources include the national training register to identify training products and current RTOs (click), the NCVER Visualisation Gallery to identify trends and opportunities in current RTO activity and VET data (click), Job Outlook to identify statistics on current occupations (click), the Labour Market Portal to identify current labour market trends (click), the My Skills website to research information on current providers (click) and of course, some good old fashioned Googling. What are you looking for? You are looking for under-serviced markets, opportunities that present from changing regulation, changes in work requirements, local training market opportunities or markets that are ripe for disruption. Try not to be all things to everyone. Work hard to identify a very specific market to enable you to concentrate your effort.
- Identify options for Learning and Assessment Material.
Research online and request samples from commercial suppliers of learning and assessment resources to evaluate the quality and format of available learning and assessment materials. Do not make the mistake of buying these too early. Just confirm your available options and evaluate the quality. Do not believe the supplier that their materials are fully compliant. Buyer beware! Get them evaluated by someone who is experienced at auditing learning and assessment materials and is independent. I would recommend you look for learning and assessment resources that are supplied in a digital or Word format. This enables you to customise these to your own mode of delivery and easily make improvements for compliance. Be aware that there are some resource suppliers that operate offshore and seem to offer every qualification possible at very low cost. You are seriously wasting your money with these suppliers. They are all form and no substance. This will be one of your major purchases in the registration of your RTO so take your time and do your research.
- Consider your statutory eligibility.
Review the Fit and Proper Person Requirements (click) to identify any issue that is going to exclude you as a fit and proper person. It’s good to identify this early. This can include criminal convictions, current bankruptcy, etc. We have seen ASQA accept the Fit and Proper Person status of an applicant where a criminal conviction is spent or the past bankruptcy is unencumbered. It is a matter of declaring these things very clearly.
- Prepare a Cash Flow Forecast.
To help you anticipate your expected revenue and operating costs, prepare a cash flow forecast for your planned RTO. Use the information you gathered during market research to make conservative estimates. This is a critical step in determining your business viability. The following tool is very useful for preparing a cash flow forecast (click). You are ultimately trying to establish that your proposed business will be profitable and you can maintain more asset than liability. Be conservative with your revenue estimates and a little generous with your cost estimates. Everything costs more that you first considered and you never quite get the student numbers that you initially thought possible.
- Consider the Financial Viability.
Investigate the financial viability requirements to register an RTO (click). This needs to consider if the business will be profitable, has sufficient cash asset to operate and more equity than debt. Keep in mind that financial viability is not about your personal finances. It is about the finances of the business entity that will apply to become an RTO. It is a good idea to talk with an experienced accountant early to consider the financial viability requirements. There seems to be a common myth that you need $50k in the bank to register an RTO. Seriously, this is total BS. The amount of cash (asset) you need at any time needs to be greater that your operating costs (liability). So if your operating costs over a given period will exceed your incoming revenue, then you will need to have enough cash to cover this cost, and then some. The amount of money you need as a start up will depend on your forecast operating cost. Hence the reason for the cash flow forecast at item 5.
- Establish your business entity (not applicable if an existing business).
We would typically recommend a Pty Ltd company to enable smoother change of ownership in the future. Also register for an ABN. Get advice from your accountant when selecting and establishing your business entity. Keep in mind that you can easily register a company yourself via the ASIC web-services (click).
- Select and register a business name (not applicable if an existing business).
Research and identify a business name that is available and register a website domain address to ensure these are secured early. Also consider registering any social media handles if this is a desired marketing channel. When you think of a business name, consider if your short, medium and long term goals or even the possibilities. I see client choose business names that immediately limit their geographic area of relevance or limit them to a narrow industry skill domain. Are you going to target a specific segment of the market with your business name or do you want to have the opportunity to be more universally relevant? You can also register your business name on the ASIC web-service (click). Make sure the business name is owned by the business entity and not by you personally. Don’t forget the domain name!
- Set up the Business Bank Account (not applicable if an existing business).
Establish a business bank account in the name of the business. Make an initial deposit in accordance with the owner equity (shares issued and value). Consider issuing additional shares in the company to deposit additional asset (cash) to meet start-up and early operating expenses. Seek advise from your qualified Accountant when making decisions about owner equity. Be aware that simply depositing your own personal funds into the business will technically act as a shareholder loan and can have the negative effect of blowing out your debt ratio in the financial viability risk assessment. The debt ratio requires that you have more equity than debt. So, if you drop 20k into the business as a personal deposit, you may have just given the business a debt of 20k. Talk to your Accountant about this.
- Understand your RTO obligations.
You seriously need to take some time to understand the requirements that apply to operating an RTO. I would strongly recommend reading the guidance at the following destinations:
- RTO Requirements and responsibilities (click)
- Users’ guide to the Standards for RTOs 2015 (click)
- Newbery’s Audit Guide – Standards for RTOs 2015 (click)
- ASQA Frequently Asked Questions (click)
- ASQA Fact sheets (click)
- ASQA Guides and tools (click)
If you are going to operate an RTO, you need to educate yourself. ASQA do not tolerate ignorance. I learnt as a very young soldier that knowledge dispels fear. The deeper and wider your knowledge and understanding of the requirements to operate an RTO, the greater control you will have over the process and the outcomes. You might be a really busy person and think that this information is more relevant for your RTO manager or your consultant. Listen to me! Carve out about 4 hours in your life and take the time to educate yourself about these obligations. You will thank me down the track.
- Find an RTO Consultant.
Engage an RTO consultant that knows what they are doing, will guide you through the application process and will teach you how to operate your RTO and about the RTO obligations. Be prepared to get your hands dirty and do not pay too much (click) 😊. We would be pleased to talk with you about how we can assist with your RTO registration.
- Develop your Training and Assessment Strategies.
For each of the courses that you intend to deliver, develop a training and assessment strategy that details the course delivery arrangements. Checkout our articles on the minimum requirements for developing a training and assessment strategy (click) which includes a free template to download. I would also strongly recommend a series of articles that we published on the requirements relating to the amount of training. Seriously, I know these are a mission to read but, if you can understand the requirements relating to the amount of training and volume of learning early, it will pay significant dividends in your RTO journey. You can access the articles on the following pages, Amount of Training – Part One – Part Two and Part Three. You will need to refine or complete your training and assessment strategies after you have completed your industry consultation and finalised your learning and assessment resources. The strategy is very much a live document that will continue to evolve right up to your application and beyond.
- Develop a course schedule.
To aid in planning the number of enrolments / courses for delivery in the first two years, prepare a detailed course schedule. Consider your available number of trainers and budgeted wages, the available equipment, the capacity of your training premises and the number of planned students per course. This planning will feed directly into your financial viability risk assessment and will help you to forecast student numbers within your capacity to deliver. The course schedule should show how your courses will be allocated to your classrooms or when your on-site course are to be delivered. This will be submitted with the application evidence so, make sure it is easy to understand and looks professional. Word doc or spreadsheet is fine. It is super important that your course schedule aligns with your forecast student numbers in the financial viability risk assessment.
- Develop your Business and Financial Plan.
These are important documents that will feed into your financial viability risk assessment. It will communicate your planned RTO operation (click). It is important to ensure that your business plan is consistent with all other documents submitted in the application. You do not want any contradictions, as an example, training and assessment strategies, fee schedules, course brochures, number of trainers, course schedule, et cetera. The following article provides some more detail on the type of information that the regulator will expect to see in you business plan (click).
- Undertake Industry Consultation.
Consult with employers to identify opportunities to customise your training and assessment to be relevant to industry requirements. Keep a detailed record of this consultation and the outcomes that informed your course development. Focus you industry consultation on the skills needed in the workplace, workplace operating procedures, equipment requirements, workplace documentation, et ectara. You need to submit evidence of your consultation so make sure it is presented professionally. Just a tip here. Letters of endorsement from industry are not relevant or valid evidence of industry consultation. It’s not about that. It is about you investigating the skills needs and work requirements in your target industry and showing how you have customised your proposed course to meet that need. Demonstrating outcomes of this investigation and development process is key.
- Acquire or Develop your Learning and Assessment Resources.
You will need learning and assessment resources that align with your training and assessment strategy and the requirements of the training package for each unit of competency. Take the time to customise these to your delivery model and organisation. Check and double check the mapping information and fix any gaps you find in the meeting of the unit of competency requirements. If applying for a qualification, you will need to submit a list of learning and assessment tools for each unit of competency within the qualification. I would always recommend purchasing materials supplied in Word under a licence. This allows the material to be properly customised. We strongly recommend getting a sample first before proceeding to purchase to properly evaluate the quality. If you don’t know what you are looking for, get some advice. You are particularly looking for assessments that have been designed. If you are looking at a sample assessment and the practical assessment instructions are basically the copied performance evidence statement from the unit and the observation record is comprised of copied performance criteria, forget about it! Keep looking for something that has been designed properly.
- Recruit your Trainers.
You will need sufficient trainers to support your initial cohort of students. You will need to submit evidence that trainers are competent in TAE40116, are current and competent in the units to be delivered and are engaged in ongoing PD. Checkout this helpful article on equivalent vocational competency (click). It is desirable that your nominated trainers complete some professional development specifically relating to delivering training and undertaking assessment. Evidence of this professional development should be submitted with the application. We offer the following professional development webinars which are pre-recorded and can be undertaken at anytime (click). Remember to submit complete evidence of your nominated trainer’s currency and competency including relevant qualifications, statements of attainment, CV/resume, recent professional development evidence and evidence of current industry skills and knowledge.
- Establish your Delivery Sites.
Organise your delivery sites according to your planned mode of delivery and training and assessment strategies. This may be evidenced by premises ownership, current lease, written agreement to rent or plans to hire premises as required. We recommend submitting a site plan, photos, completed WHS checklist and evidence of local government approval (if applicable) to demonstrate the site suitability. Your course schedule we discussed earlier will also be required to show how this site will be utilised. If you are not planning on having permanent delivery sites and intend to delivery training and assessment at your client’s premises (as an example a short course on working at heights), you will need a comprehensive checklist for each course to confirm the site suitability and access to the required equipment and resources on-site. You are basically outsourcing the premises cost to your client, so it comes with the obligation to verify the site suitability each time. The checklist will need to make sure that you have access to suitable space, facilities and equipment in accordance with the requirements of the training and assessment to be delivered. Just a tip here, keep an eye on the assessment conditions within your nominated units of competency.
- Establish Trainer Agreements.
You need to submit with the application evidence of each trainer’s agreement in the form of an employment agreement, or contract agreement, or letter of acceptance for employment once registration has been granted. Check out the guidance on evidence required in relation to nominated trainer engagement (click).
- Prepare your access to Equipment and Resources.
Acquire equipment and resources to support the delivery of your training and assessment in accordance with your developed training and assessment strategies and the requirements of the relevant training package. Make sure this list shows the quantities relevant to your planned number of learners and it complies with the requirements of the assessment conditions. Also refer to item 18 in regards to verifying equipment and resources when delivering training and assessment on-site.
- Establish your Learner Support arrangements.
Prepare evidence of your learner support arrangements including your arrangements to confirm a learner’s core skills to identify support needs and to provide learner support services such as additional learning support, access support, admin support, et cetera. Provide evidence of these arrangements including any policy and procedure, LLN assessment tools, intake forms, et cetera.
- Develop Marketing Material.
Create your marketing material such as course brochures to advertise your intended course. This marketing material should align with course delivery arrangements outlined within your training and assessment strategy and business plan. Checkout this fact sheet (click).
- Develop Pre-enrolment Documentation.
Establish your pre-enrolment information documents to inform learners about their rights and obligations prior to their enrolment including a Student Handbook. The Student Handbook will complement the marketing material and fee information. You should also include evidence of your enrolment procedure and tools that shows how learners are engaged prior to their enrolment of commencement.
- Develop your Fee Schedule.
The Fee Schedule is required to advise the learner of their consumer rights and fee payment requirements. The fees must align with you business and financial plan and fee protection requirements. Make sure that your schedule of payments complies with the fee protection requirements that apply to payments in advance of services being delivered. Check out this article (click).
- Set-up your Student Management Software.
Subscribe to a student management software to enable you to report your AVETMISS activity data and manage your learner enrolments and training operation. You must submit evidence of having a subscription to an AVETMISS compliant software. We have provided a leading student management software since 2009. Request a free trial and orientation session of RTO Data Cloud (click).
- Produce your AQF Certificates.
Prepare an example of your Qualification Certificate and Statement of Attainment to be submitted with the application to demonstrate your compliance with the required certificate format. Checkout the guidance available at the following page (click). We would also recommend that you submit with the application a certificate issuance policy and procedure.
- Develop RTO Policy and Procedure.
Develop or customise your RTO Policy and Procedure to demonstrate your arrangements to comply with the Standards for RTOs. Submit policies with your application such as enrolment, certification, fee collection, marketing, assessment, trainer management, mandatory reporting, et cetera. Check out (click).
- Complete Financial Viability Risk Assessment.
Finalise your Financial Viability Risk Assessment with your Accountant. The evidence to be submitted in one zip folder includes the completed Financial Viability Risk Assessment Tool (click), business plan, signed accountant certificate and supporting evidence such as bank statements, ATO integrated client account statement, financial statements, et cetera.
- Prepare your Business Entity Documents.
Prepare your Business Entity Documents to be submitted with the application including details of ABN registration, company certificate, company historical extract, trust deed (if applicable). If your applicant entity is owned by another entity such as another company, you will also be asked to upload the company historical extract for the owner entity as well.
- Complete Declarations for submission.
Complete Declarations for submission with the application including a Fit and Proper Person Declarations (click) by all owners and the nominated CEO and the CEO Declaration which is accessed on ASQAnet when preparing the application.
- Organise and Upload your Application Evidence.
Organise and Upload your Application Evidence with the application by creating a series of zip folders numbered according to the sections of the self-assessment (click). You can upload as many zip folders as required and keep each zip folder less than 12-13 MB otherwise it will not upload. I recommend that you PDF all Word documents to ensure that the files are stable when opened. Make sure you logically and professionally name each folder and file. Presenting evidence in a professional way makes a big difference to how these documents are received.
- Complete the Self-assessment for Registration as an RTO.
Complete the Self-assessment for Registration as an RTO (click). Complete each section very carefully including sections that start with “Provide information to support your compliance” where you should list all documents being submitted for each section. Getting an external Desk Audit (click) is not a bad strategy to identify any significant issues, so these can be addressed prior to your submission. This may identify issues in your learning and assessment resources which you can work on whilst waiting for ASQA to respond to the application.
- Register for ASQAnet, Load and Submit the Application.
Register for ASQAnet and complete application for RTO registration (click). If you get stuck, call the ASQA info line (1300 701 801). Keep in mind that once you submit Part A, you cannot go back. If you forgot to upload something important, you will need to start over, trust me, I know. In this instance, send an email to ASQA enquires and request them to delete the Part A application. This is the only way to do this. You then select your scope and complete Part B and pay the initial application fee of $500. You can then have a little celebration (not too big). If you have completed the application properly, you will get an email from the ASQA Melbourne crew confirming that the application was accepted and will give you another invoice, this time for $8,000.00. Once this is paid, you can expect to then wait 12-16 weeks for someone from ASQA to get in contact. Most of these initial registration applications are handled by the Darwin office and they are completely under resourced. Use this time to fine tune your learning and assessment tools and resources.
- Develop your RTO website.
A good activity to complete in the 3 months you are waiting for ASQA to respond is to develop your website for your proposed RTO. For many RTOs, the website is their shopfront. It is so critical to have a professional online presence that makes the marketing and enrolment process easy. Desirably, your website will integrate with your student management system such as RTO Data Cloud (click) to enable your course information to be displayed in your marketing, a course calendar based on your scheduled courses and to invite and accept online enrolments. It is best to keep your website off the web until your RTO is approved. The challenge with website development is finding a developer that you can trust and will produce a high quality website at a reasonable cost. We can absolutely recommend Debi Hazelden at Noosa Website Design who specialises in RTO website development and integration of RTO Data Cloud (click).
- Participate in the Verification Meeting.
ASQA generally do not do initial registration site audits any more. Since about mid 2018, they review all of the application evidence as a desk audit based on the evidence submitted with the application. If you have applied for a qualification, they will request a sample of 2-3 units of competency learning and assessment resources for each qualification as part of the desk audit. The verification meeting will really just focus on anything that they have identified from the desk audit. In our experience, this meeting is typically a phone call or video call and generally goes for about 40-60 minutes. Also be aware that you will only get about 24 hours notice to supply the requested learning and assessment resources, so you need to be ready for this request.
- Respond to any non-compliance
Obviously it is possible to have some non-compliances that need to be resolved. It happens. Take the time to understand the non-compliances and manage the process to respond to ASQA. If you do not understand the non-compliances, get some advice. You simply don’t know what you don’t know, so come to terms with your situation quickly and get some advice. Outcomes from the audit can range from:
- application approved – fully compliant, well done 😊,
- application approved – with minor deficiencies,
- application approved – with a Written Direction to rectify,
- application rejected – with the opportunity to request a Reconsideration of the Decision.
If you find yourself in the position of needing to request a Reconsideration of the Decision, you need to get seriously organised and get some advice. The audit reports are generally very cryptic, report only on exception and only give you examples. If they give you an example, you need to consider the same finding of that example across everything. If you need some help to respond to a non-compliant application outcome, you can consider our service designed to assist you through this process (click).
- Registration Approved
Woohoo! Your RTO is approved and you are up on the national training register. Well done. Time to celebrate (this time, go big!). You can make your website public and start the marketing. Don’t forget at this point to get your Public Liability insurance before you commence operating (click). Also, take note of any reporting obligations that you may need to comply with (click). Good luck and stay on top of your administration and compliance. ASQA will be back for your renewal of registration in only 24 months and will do an audit to make sure you are flying straight. After that you can expect a registration period of seven years if ASQA are satisfied with the services you are delivering. Good training!
Conclusion
Wow! I know this is a big list. But, it should provide you sufficient guidance to navigate the process yourself with a little timely advice which of course we are happy to provide (click). If instead you would like more complete support to register your RTO, you may like to review our RTO registration services (Domestic or CRICOS). If you are registering an RTO and would like to adopt RTO Data Cloud (click) as your student management software, get in contact with us and we can let you know about some special offers that we have for businesses that are in the process of navigating RTO registration.
Last point, beware of consultants that try to make it all sound too easy or claim to do everything for you. This is never the reality. You want a consultant that is a partner in the journey, that will be brutally honest with you and can educate you along the way. When your RTO hits Training.gov.au you need to have a fundamental knowledge about your RTO and your compliance obligations. Your consultant should be a teacher, a mentor, a friend and someone you can rely on to tell you when you are heading in the wrong direction. If you are serious about registering an RTO, please get in contact with us and we are happy to have a discussion. I hope this information has been helpful and I wish you well in your journey to become an RTO.
Good training,
Joe Newbery
Published: 22nd March 2021
Copyright © Newbery Consulting 2021. All rights reserved.
VET News – 18th March 2021
|
VET News – 4th March 2021
|
RTO Admin Support – Terms and Conditions
RTO Admin Support – Terms and Conditions
When you submit the purchase order for RTO Admin Support, you are required to indicate by ticking the checkbox that you have read, understood and agree to these terms and conditions associated with the services. Evidence of this acknowledgement will be retained within Newbery Consulting client records.
The RTO Admin Support is provided by the Newbery Consulting client support team. This service specifically relates to providing additional admin support in relation to RTO Data Cloud. Please note: If you are using a different student management system software, this service is not relevant to you.
The cost of the service includes 8 hours of admin support. The admin support hours may be used as you require at a time best suited for your business and operation. This may be a one-off purchase for a specific support requirement or a regular purchase where our client support team becomes part of your team and understands your operation.
RTO Admin support is provided remotely using email, teleconference or Zoom. Admin support can include assisting clients with setting up their RTO Data Cloud, data entry, reporting or any administration support you require. The client support team know RTO Data Cloud back to front so are able to complete tasks very efficiently. RTO Admin Support can involve setting up arrangements to upload records such as completed student assessment records and these can be processed by a client support team member to update student assessment outcomes and issue certificates. There are many possible ways you can use RTO Admin Support. The allocation of a team member and the scheduling of hours is coordinated through our Client Support Coordinator.
This time can be used over a 12 month period; however, any unused portion of the time will expire 12 months following the original purchase date. Multiple days can be purchased at the same time. It is recommended that you make contact with Newbery Consulting first to discuss your support requirements before purchase.
The RTO Admin Support is particularly useful to undertake the following:
- Setting up client training plans and course schedules
- Designing AQF certificates and email templates
- Inputting student results and activity data
- Assisting with enrolments and completions
- Updating trainer information and PD
- Recording meeting minutes or quality improvements
- Assisting in course development in the LMS
- Assisting with AVETMISS reporting
- Maintaining the accuracy of data in support of reporting
- Generating student correspondence
- Assisting with document management
What we do not do during the RTO Admin Support service
It is important to note that during this service Newbery Consulting do not:
- manage or take responsibility for your compliance
- develop your learning and assessment strategies, tools or resources
- customise your policies and procedures or forms and tools to your operation
- provide any advice or support to the development of your business and financial plan
- Provide any compliance advice in respect of the Standards for RTOs or the National Code
- provide any advice or support to your financial viability risk assessment
- provide any support or consultation on site or at your premises
- develop application evidence on your behalf
- attend audits or communicate on your behalf to the National VET Regulator
- provide support toward RTO Registration
- provide any services which can be construed as a High Managerial Agent
- provide any legal advice
- provide expert witness statements or appearances
Confidentiality
Newbery Consulting agrees that any information received by it during the provision of services relating to your organisation, operational or commercial affairs shall be treated by Newbery Consulting in strict confidence and will not be revealed to any other persons or organisation unless compelled to do so under the law.
Newbery Consulting may be compelled under s 62 of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (Cth) to provide information to the National VET Regulator about an RTO to which it provides a service by issuing a written notice to Newbery Consulting to give information and documents. It is an offence under s 64 of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 to not provide information and documents when requested to do so.
Disclaimer
Newbery Consulting makes the RTO Admin Support services available on the understanding that Clients’ exercise their own skill and care with respect to their use of this service. Before relying on these services in any important matter, clients should carefully evaluate the accuracy, completeness and correct performance of the service and should obtain appropriate professional advice relevant to their particular circumstances. It is critical that information provided to Newbery Consulting for processing or data entry is accurate and complete. Newbery Consulting cannot not be held liable for determining the accuracy or completeness of your data or information.
Refunds
If you wish to cancel the service you can simply advise Newbery Consulting of this decision via email at: enquiries@newberyconsulting.com.au
No refunds whatsoever will be given for a cancelled services in relation to unused hours.
Refusal, Cancellation or Cessation of Service
We reserve the right to refuse, cancel or cease the service for any reason we deem appropriate. The following are some examples of why we may refuse, cancel or cease the service:
- Rude, offensive or abusive behaviour. Rude, offensive or abusive behaviour toward Newbery Consulting staff by you or any representative from your organisation, will not be tolerated and will result in immediate cancellation of the service.
- Breach of terms and conditions. Breach or failure to comply with these terms and conditions or any other terms and conditions of related products and services will result in immediate cancellation of services.
- Failure to protect the interests of students and consumers. Any action taken, or arrangement implemented by the client that Newbery Consulting consider fails to protect the interests of prospective learners of the client or consumers will result in cancellation of the service.
Waiver of Liability
By accessing the RTO Admin Support services, the Client waives and releases Newbery Consulting to the full extent permitted by law from any and all claims relating to the usage of product or the provision of advice and under no circumstances whatsoever shall Newbery Consulting be deemed to assume any responsibility for or obligation or duty with respect to any part or all of the Client’s business.
Acknowledgement of Terms and Conditions
By purchasing the RTO Admin Support service you acknowledge that you on behalf of your business entity understand and agreed to these Terms and Conditions. These Terms and Conditions should be read in-conjunction with the other related Terms and Conditions.
Acknowledgement of these Terms and Conditions implies acknowledgement of all related Terms and Conditions.
Updated – 22nd February 2021
Copyright © Newbery Consulting 2021. All rights reserved.
VET News – 18th February 2021
|
VET News – 21st January 2021
|
RTO Rectification Support – Terms and Conditions
RTO Rectification Support – Terms and Conditions
Please take the time to read through these terms and conditions carefully. These are not your typical legalistic terms and conditions. They explain how we will work thogether and yours and our responsibilities. They will help you make a decision about proceeding with this service or not. Make a list of questions and if you are keen to have a discussion with Joe, submit an enquiry and we can set that up on phone or Zoom.
1. Agreement
1.1 When you submit the purchase for the RTO Rectification Support, you are required to indicate by ticking the checkbox that you have read, understood and agree to these terms and conditions associated with the RTO Rectification Support service. Evidence of this acknowledgement will be retained within Newbery Consulting client records. These terms and conditions came into effect on the 30th June 2018 and remain current.
2. Objective and time allocation
2.1 RTO Rectification Support is simply a way of allocating an amount of time to be used by the client to obtain advice from Newbery Consulting. The objective of this package is to assist a business respond to non-compliance resulting from an ASQA regulatory audit in relation to the RTOs registration or an organisation’s application for course accreditation. Joe will typically set the agenda and priorities for the rectification work to be undertaken. RTO Rectification Support is delivered remotely typically using teleconference and videoconference. There is no limit on the consulting support allocated in this project but obviously, Joe has other priorities and client that need to be consdered. We will typically schedule a meeting with you every day Mon – Thu to keep things moving. The RTO Rectification Support ends when the matter is resolved with the national regulator.
3. Costs
3.1 The cost for RTO Rectification Support is $8,580.00.
4. Type of support that can be provided
4.1 RTO Rectification Support is particularly useful to undertake the following:
4.1.1 analysis and advice on the audit report findings,
4.1.2 review and advice on current documentation and arrangements,
4.1.3 provision of example templates where relevant to assist in responding to non-compliance,
4.1.4 guidance on remediation (if required),
4.1.5 review of additional evidence as it is being developed,
4.1.6 organisation of evidence for submission, and
4.1.7 preparation of the evidence summary to accompany the final submission.
5. Preliminary activities
5.1 Get in contact first. Before you commence this service, it is recommended that you make contact with Joe first to discuss your rectification requirements before proceeding with this service. Joe will usually request to see a copy of the audit report to advise on the viability of responding. Some audit finding are beyond rectification, so it is important to contact us first. During the service, you will be working directly with Joe, so it is important that have an opportunity to meet and be comfortable that you will be able to work together. Joe will ask you lots of questions about the audit findings and suggest an approach he would recommend on moving forward.
5.2 Skill and Capacity. It is important that you employ or otherwise can engage suitable persons with skills and knowledge within your organisation to prepare rectification evidence in response to our advice. You are recommended to establish a solution or arrangement for this prior to commencing this service. You will need to apply suitable time and resources to prepare the rectification evidence and be responsive to the advice provided by Newbery Consulting. It is not the role of Newbery Consulting to teach your staff how to develop the evidence during the scope of this work. There is simply no time for this. Put together a team of smart and capable people who are responsive and can work with a sense of urgency. The rectification must be submitted by the timeframe specified by ASQA. We are experienced at providing advice toward this work, but if the person performing the work does not understand how to apply or respond to our advice it will seriously impact on the time needed to develop material and potentially on the success of your submission. It is critical that you have access to competent persons to perform this work.
5.3 Registered business. This services is only delivered as a business to business transaction. A valid ABN, entity details and contact details must be supplied in the purchase form.
5.4 File sharing. We will often want to set up a shared dropbox with you so that we can share files and colaborate in their development. If you do not currently have an account on Dropbox, you can establish a free account here (click).
6. Communication
6.1 During this service, we are going to be communicating a lot. It is important that we have some ground rules for how communication will work and what to expect. In general, we have the following preferences and guidelines for communications:
6.1.1 The preferred method of communicating with Joe is email. We use email to give advice, receive your questions and documents for review. If you send a document to Joe for review, maybe allow 3-4 days for a response with feedback.
6.1.2 We prefer not to use text messages to communicate unless it is something super urgent like letting us know you are running late for a zoom or something like that. Joe may send you a text if he is running late. We do not provide consulting advice over text and if you send Joe a text asking this, he will revert you back to email.
6.1.3 We do not communicate through any form of social media (such as Linkedin chat, Facebook Messenger), ever.
6.1.4 All scheduled meetings are conducted on Zoom. Sometimes depending how the data is performing, we may talk on the phone and share a screen on Zoom. We can also use Teams, but prefer Zoom. We generally have a 30-60 minutes meetings on a frequency based on your needs. Most clients like to schedule a meeting week-to-week or we can schedule a fixed reoccurring meeting. If you have some burning issue, we can generally schedule an ad-hoc meeting most days, even if for 15-30 minutes. Joe schedules meeting Mon-Thu 9:00 am to 4:00 pm and Fri 9:00 am – 2:00 pm. These meeting are your meetings. So, you drive the agenda to discuss the issues and questions you have based on your requirements.
6.1.5 Timings, you can send us an email anytime you like. Joe often responds to email early morning between 4-7 am. Joe will monitor emails virtually every waking hour but will generally not respond to emails after 5 pm. Joe also will generally not respond to emails on the weekend unless it is something super urgent.
6.1.6 Please be aware that Joe uses voice recognition software to virtually write everything. This includes emails and whilst he generally does a quick proof read before sending, sometimes he will not have time and would prefer to send you a reply with advice rather than delaying. Please excuse any minor software interpretation errors.
6.1.7 We use email, phone, Zoom and Teams to communicate. That’s it. Please do not request that we subscribe to some new collaboration platform as this will be declined.
6.1.8 We all need to keep our communication courteous and professional. We should give each other the time to talk and make their point and try to avoid talking over the top of each other. We will have robust discussions and sometimes we may not completely agree. That is ok, as long as we respect each other’s opinion and work toward finding a middle ground way forward.
7. What we do not do in supplying RTO Rectification Support
7.1 It is critically important to note that Newbery Consulting provide advice only during this service. In addition to our advice, we are happy to provide examples of documents you are working on to guide your development but only if we have these available at the time. We are expert consultants in vocational education and training and compliance with the Standards for RTOs 2015 and the National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2018. We are not business consultants, financial advisors, realestate agents, building certifiers, legal advisors or accountants. We are very disciplined at staying in our lane and recommend that you always seek advice from those qualified and experienced to provide it. If you seek advice about something that is outside our area of expertise, Joe will simply advise you that this is not something he can advise you on.
7.3 It is important to note that during this service Newbery Consulting do not:
7.3.1 develop your learning and assessment strategies, tools or resources,
7.3.2 customise your policies and procedures or forms and tools,
7.3.3 provide advice or support in business development or financial planning,
7.3.4 provide advice on building approval for BCA or local government requirements,
7.3.5 provide advice on building rental or lease terms and agreements,
7.3.6 provide advice or support to your financial viability risk assessment,
7.3.7 provide support or consultation on site or at your premises,
7.3.8 develop accredited course document or units,
7.3.9 provide you with legal advice, and
7.3.10 provide services which can be construed as a High Managerial Agent.
8. Disclaimer
8.1 Newbery Consulting makes the RTO Rectification Support service available on the understanding that Clients’ exercise their own skill and care with respect to its use. Before relying on the advice provided in this service in any important matter, clients should carefully evaluate the accuracy, completeness and relevance of the information for their purposes and should obtain appropriate professional advice relevant to their particular circumstances.
9. Refunds
9.1 If you wish to cancel the service you can simply advise Newbery Consulting of this decision via email at: enquiries@newberyconsulting.com.au.
9.2 No refunds whatsoever will be given for a cancelled services where initial consultation has already commenced. Prior to any consultation being provided, you are entitled to receive a full refund of the payment made to Newbery Consulting. Consultation includes any meeting via phone or video conference or providing advice via email. If you change your mind and would like a refund prior to any consultation being provided, then notify us immediately. Businesses should be aware of their rights as a business consumer by reviewing the information at the ACCC Business Rights page (click).
9.3 The following are not valid grounds for a business to request a refund:
9.3.1 has changed its mind,
9.3.2 has experienced a change in circumstances,
9.3.3 failed to plan prior to commencing the service,
9.3.4 has experienced a change in market conditions,
9.3.5 has insufficient time and resources to progress,
9.3.6 could not satisfy fit and proper person requirements,
9.3.7 could not demonstrate financial viability,
9.2.8 do not have sufficient skill and capacity,
9.3.9 could not recruit competent and current trainers,
9.3.10 has decided to engage a different consultant,
9.3.11 chooses not to use either part or all of the services, or
9.3.12 have discovered a new business opportunity.
10. Refusal, Cancellation or Cessation of Service
10.1 We reserve the right to refuse, cancel or cease the service for any reason we deem appropriate. The following are some examples of why we may refuse, cancel or cease the service:
10.1.1 Rude, offensive or abusive behaviour. Rude, offensive or abusive behaviour toward Newbery Consulting staff by you or any representative from your organisation, will not be tolerated and will result in immediate cancellation of the service without warning.
10.1.2 Breach of terms and conditions. Breach or failure to comply with these terms and conditions or any other terms and conditions of related products and services will result in immediate cancellation of service without warning.
10.1.3 Failure to follow advice. Failure by the client to follow the advice provided by Newbery Consulting will not be tolerated particularly where the actions of the client are likely to result in non-compliant arrangements being presented to the national VET regulator. Failure to follow the advice provided by Newbery Consulting will result in the cancellation of the service after fair warning has been provided.
10.1.4 Failure to protect the interests of students and consumers. Any action taken, or arrangement implemented by the client that Newbery Consulting consider fails to protect the interests of prospective learners of the client or consumers will result in the cancellation of the service after fair warning has been provided.
11. Confidentiality
11.1 Newbery Consulting agrees that any information received by it during the provision of services relating to your organisation, operational or commercial affairs is “Confidential Information” shall be treated by Newbery Consulting in strict confidence and will not be revealed to any other persons or organisation unless compelled to do so under the law.
11.2 Newbery Consulting acknowledge that the Confidential Information that is held or owned by the Client is valuable proprietary information and that harm may be caused to the Client by its disclosure.
11.3 Newbery Consulting agrees to hold in strictest confidence the Confidential Information and not to divulge, provide or otherwise make available or to allow any of its employees, agents, sub-contractors or representatives to divulge, provide or otherwise to make available to any person in whole or in part, any of the Confidential Information other than:
11.3.1 with the prior written consent of the Client;
11.3.2 by operation of law provided that all available legal steps have been taken to prevent or limit such disclosure;
11.3.3 to use and to ensure that its employees, agents, sub-contractors and representatives use the Confidential Information solely for the purpose of this agreement.
11.3.4 to take or cause to be taken such precautions as may be reasonably required by the Client to maintain the secrecy and confidentiality of the Confidential Information and to prevent its disclosure.
11.4 Newbery Consulting may be compelled under s 62 of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (Cth) to provide information to the National VET Regulator by issuing a written notice to Newbery Consulting to give information and documents. It is an offence under s 64 of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 to not provide information and documents when requested to do so. Newbery Consulting will comply with written notices issued by the National VET Regulator.
12. Waiver of Liability
12.1 By accessing the RTO Rectification Support services, the Client waives and releases Newbery Consulting to the full extent permitted by law from any and all claims relating to the usage of product or the provision of advice and under no circumstances whatsoever shall Newbery Consulting be deemed to assume any responsibility for or obligation or duty with respect to any part or all of the Client’s business.
13. Acknowledgement of Terms and Conditions
13.1 By purchasing the RTO Rectification Support service you acknowledge that you on behalf of your business entity understand and agreed to these Terms and Conditions. These Terms and Conditions should be read in-conjunction with the other related Terms and Conditions. Acknowledgement of these Terms and Conditions implies acknowledgement of all related Terms and Conditions.
Published – 30th June 2018
Copyright © Newbery Consulting 2022. All rights reserved.
VET News – 18th December 2020
|
VET News – 30th November 2020
|
VET News – 18th November 2020
|
VET News – 28th October 2020
|
Equivalent Vocational Competency
One of, if not the most subjective compliance issues that we encounter is how RTOs and auditors consider the concept of equivalent vocational competency. What is equivalent vocational competency and what clause does it relate to? Let’s start with the second question first to put things in context. Clause 1.13 a) of the Standards for Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) 2015 requires the following:
1.13. In addition to the requirements specified in Clause 1.14 and Clause 1.15, the RTO’s training and assessment is delivered only by persons who have: a) vocational competencies at least to the level being delivered and assessed;
VET News – 13th October 2020
|
Equivalent Vocational Competency
Equivalent Vocational Competency
One of, if not the most subjective compliance issues that we encounter is how RTOs and auditors consider the concept of equivalent vocational competency.
What is equivalent vocational competency and what clause does it relate to? Let’s start with the second question first to put things in context. Clause 1.13 a) of the Standards for Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) 2015 requires the following:
1.13. In addition to the requirements specified in Clause 1.14 and Clause 1.15, the RTO’s training and assessment is delivered only by persons who have: a) vocational competencies at least to the level being delivered and assessed;
This requires that if a trainer and assessor is delivering training and assessment as nationally recognised training, they must hold the actual “competencies” they are delivering. Notice the use of the word “competencies” as opposed to the general concept of “competency”. This is very deliberate and is intended to ensure that the trainer holds the actual units of competency which are being delivered. In many cases, this is exactly what is happening. The trainer will often hold the actual competencies they are delivering or may hold a superseded unit of competency which can be verified on the national training register as equivalent to the current unit being delivered. This situation is very straight forward and is objectively compliant. This is not equivalent vocational competency, it is simply, vocational competency.
So, what is equivalent vocational competency? The concept of equivalent vocational competency is not defined within the actual standards for RTO which is why this area of compliance can be so subjective. To its credit, the regulator has inserted a relatively helpful section within its recent Spotlight On series on Vocational competence and currency (click). It says the following:
Your RTO should apply a consistent approach to assess whether a prospective trainer and assessor has an equivalent unit of competency. Your approach should:
- establish the requirements for the applicable unit of competency
- determine a clear relationship between the evidence provided by the trainer and assessor and each of the requirements
- confirm that the trainer and assessor has broad industry knowledge and experience for each of the requirements
- verify the evidence provided by the candidate.
- current or recent employment or placement in industry
- attendance at relevant professional development activities
- completion of related formal or non-formal training
- active participation in networks, communities of practice or mentoring activities
- active participation in industry release schemes
- personal development through the reading of journals
- participation in projects with industry
- shadowing or working closely with other trainers and assessors.
When the trainer does not hold the actual units of competency being delivered, they need to prove through providing evidence that, they are competent to deliver these units of competency. This can be very confronting for these trainers because it is probably the first time, someone has ever questioned their competency. This can often be after they were initially recruited and can present a challenging situation for those responsible for managing compliance. No matter how confronting or challenging, if the trainer does not hold the actual units of competency (or superseded units of competency) the question must be asked and it is the responsibility of both the trainer and the RTO to work together to establish the required evidence to verify equivalent vocational competency. If I were to propose a definition for equivalent vocational competency, it would be this:
Equivalent Vocational Competency: A person’s current vocational knowledge and skills equal to that specified in a unit of competency, often demonstrated through evidence of prior learning and relevant vocational experience.
As an example, I was looking at a client’s evidence last week where they are delivering the qualification ICT40518 – Certificate IV in Programming. The nominated trainer had completed a Bachelor of Computer Applications in another country and since arriving in Australia had also completed a Diploma of Information Technology (Software Development), a Diploma of Software Development and finally a Master of Information Technology. The trainer also still works in the IT sector as a freelance web designer and software developer. The evidence presented to me included all of those verified qualifications, CV, references confirming current and ongoing work and a myriad of recent professional development evidence. It took me all of about 10 minutes to accept that this trainer was completely vocationally competent. The trainer does not hold the actual units of competency, but the body of valid and authentic evidence that directly confirms the trainers high level of competency and ongoing work performing the tasks directly relevant to the units of competency being delivered, is very clear. This is an excellent example of the RTO demonstrating that the trainer holds “equivalent vocational competency”. I have complete confidence that when this evidence is presented to the auditor in ASQA (this week) it will be found compliant with clause 1.13a.
Highly Subjective
During my time as an auditor with various VET regulators, the concept of equivalent competency would regularly be discussed during auditor moderation. The trouble I have always had with the regulator’s approach is that, ultimately it comes down to how the auditor personally interprets the evidence before them and relies on their own perception and experience. If their own personal audit paradigm comes from a place of trust, confidence, and reason, then of course they would accept the above scenario as equivalent vocational competency. Conversely, if their personal audit paradigm is fueled by their power to make a finding over the RTO, a lack of personal confidence and reason, then the opportunity arises for the auditor to find some reason to identify the evidence as “not sufficient” or not directly relevant to the units of competency been delivered, et cetera. It is absolutely the auditor’s own judgement that decides this because of a lack of quality review within the ASQA audit process and an absence of any formal decision framework to govern these decisions. It is subjective. The RTO walks away scratching their head thinking, “I really don’t know what other evidence we could have provided”. Have you ever found yourself in that situation? I bet many of you have.
Don’t get me wrong, there are frequent situations where the client will present a trainer records to me and I simply don’t agree that the trainer holds equivalent vocational competency. There was a recent example of this only last month where the client was seeking to deliver the qualification CHC33015 – Certificate III in Individual Support in the context of the residential aged care sector. The nominated trainer held the qualification CHC40312 – Certificate IV in Disability which obviously relates to a different care context and sector and is superseded. Notwithstanding this, there are some units of competency that would cross over and, in some respects, the mechanics of providing care are similar. I mapped the units of competency for the two qualifications and found about three units of competency which I could be satisfied were equivalent. This left about 10 units of competency which do not appear to be vocationally equivalent. So, I looked at the other evidence the client had provided which included a CV, trainer matrix and professional development evidence. The nominated trainer had worked in the aged care sector between 2003 – 2005 before they had undertaken any formal training. From 2005, they had held positions in various disability care organisations particularly specialising in delivering home disability care services and in 2013 acquired the above Certificate IV in Disability. In 2015 the trainer obtained their TAE40110 qualification and commenced delivering training and assessment services for an RTO in aged care and had held a number of different positions within different RTOs since that time as an aged care trainer.
My client was basing their decision to nominate this trainer on the fact that the trainer has worked in numerous RTOs over the last few years delivering aged care training and has a wealth of industry experience. The reality is this trainer had no obvious experience working in the aged care sector. They certainly held qualifications in disability care and had significant industry experience in that sector which is not the same as providing individual support in the residential aged care sector. The evidence presented of the trainers competency was not sufficient or valid to demonstrate vocational equivalent competency and just because other RTOs had made the mistake of utilising this trainer in the delivery of aged care training, this does not provide any justification or basis of approval to nominate the trainer to deliver aged care training now. The client made the point that the trainer currently works in aged care but there was no evidence available of this and none has subsequently been provided. I assume that the trainer told the client that they are working in aged care but has never provided evidence of this. This situation is an excellent case study of an RTO nominating a trainer for a qualification that does not hold sufficient vocational competency or industry experience.
But, there are a myriad of situations which fall in between the examples provided in this article so far, such as:
- A trainer might hold a related higher qualification but hold none of the units of competency being delivered and not be able to demonstrate any significant industry experience. For some reason qualifications like project management and leadership and management seem to feature in this space. Obviously without any industry experience it is simply not possible to demonstrate equivalent vocational competency. Now, if you change this scenario to include significant evidence of industry experience, it changes the way the evidence is interpreted completely. Lets take an Accountant who is a practicing CPA who holds a TAE and is delivering the Diploma of Accounting. If I could verify the qualification and the directly relevant industry experience performing the tasks relevant to the units of competency, I would be fine with this. If you take away the relevant industry experience, it does not matter that they are a qualified accountant, without evidence of experience in performing the actual tasks, the trainer is not able to demonstrate their vocational competency.
- Another classic situation is where the trainer may have significant industry experience detailed within their CV, hold impressive qualifications which are not directly relevant, not hold any of the units of competency being delivered and has provided minimal evidence to verify the industry experience outlined within the CV. These situations are extremely frustrating for the RTO because they know the trainer is highly experienced and is valued by learners and they have relied on the details within the trainer’s CV and verified references as evidence of vocational experience. In this case, information in the CV and verified references is not valid or sufficient evidence of vocational competency. The RTO would need to prepare detailed mapping information that the trainer would compile to detail specific evidence from their experience relevant to each unit of competency to prove their vocational competency relevant to the units of competency being delivered. Just because a trainer holds a swag of qualifications, unless these are directly relevant to the units of competency been delivered, these are irrelevant. Experience on the other hand is king but, is hard to demonstrate and requires deliberate planning and effort.
A classic example I give to clients in the above situation is an audit I completed on behalf of a regulator back in 2008. The RTO was based in Brisbane and was delivering the BSB40307 – Certificate IV in Customer Contact. I remember that the nominated trainer did not hold the actual competencies or the qualification they were delivering. Instead, the trainer held a Diploma of Business (Frontline Management). When I queried the vocational competency of the trainer, the RTO was able to provide further evidence which included a CV and verified references which confirmed that the trainer was previously a shift supervisor at the Qantas Customer Call Centre in Sydney managing customer contact for about six years up till 2007. I contacted the referee at Qantas and confirm this. I had no doubt in my mind that this trainer was competent and experienced in the units of competency they were delivered, and I accepted this. When I think of that situation in today’s context, I would recommend to that RTO today to prepare some additional evidence in the form of a competency mapping and specific evidence relevant to each unit of competency as suggested in the regulators fact sheet.
Treat it like an RPL situation
I frequently say to clients that making a claim for equivalent vocational competency where the nominated trainer does not hold the actual units of competency being delivered, is like applying for RPL to the auditor. Have another read of the guidance provided by the national regulator above and ask yourself, does that description of evidence sound like RPL? Absolutely it does. When an auditor reviews evidence of your trainer’s competency and currency and the trainer does not actually hold the units of competency being delivered, the auditor needs to be provided sufficient and valid evidence to agree that even though the nominated trainer does not hold the actual units of competency being delivered, it is very clear from the available evidence that the trainer is certainly competent and experienced. I will often flip the situation for the client when they have not provided sufficient evidence to agree to this and ask them, if this trainer submitted this evidence to you and applied for RPL would you grant the units of competency using recognition of prior learning? Of course, the client’s answer is always no, and this underlines the point that the evidence being presented by the RTO in support of the trainer’s equivalent vocational competency is not sufficient.
If you have a trainer who does not hold the actual units of competency they are delivering, I recommend that you apply the following steps:
- Firstly, gather all of the trainers qualifications and undertake a careful analysis of the units of competency they hold and compare these to the units of competency to be delivered to identify any units of competency which are similar or are identified as equivalent on the national training register. Although the unit of competency may technically not be equivalent, if it has a similar occupational outcome, this can often be accepted as supporting evidence of equivalent vocational competency.
- After confirming any possible unit alignment, focus in on the units of competency which do not align and require supporting evidence. Now, approach this from an RPL prospective and ask the trainer to consider each unit of competency and what evidence they could provide that verifies their current competency. It is important that you apply the same rules of evidence to this as normal assessment. The trainer needs to nominate evidence that is valid, authentic, current and sufficient. Currency is of particular importance. The trainer needs to demonstrate that they are competent now, not 10 years ago. Evidence might include examples of actual work completed, duty statements, references, performance appraisal, formal and informal learning, ongoing work participation, et cetera.
- Document this information into a competency mapping where the unit of competency title and maybe the elements of competency in a table on the left and the response by the trainer including a reference to available evidence and referees if available on the right. Referees are quite valuable to nominate as they can verify currency of the nominated trainer’s competency. One thing to avoid when preparing these competency mapping tables is the practice of simply copying the response information and evidence from one unit of competency to the other. This often results in evidence which is very generic and not valid for each unit of competency. I often recommend that the trainer respond to each unit of competency like a selection criteria response in a job application. Each response should be unique and highlight their current capability and competency performing the task. If you get back a competency mapping document where the trainer has simply pasted the same generic and higher-level response against every unit of competency, send it back.
- Keep a copy of the nominated evidence which is mentioned in the mapping document. It is quite important that if the auditor wants to verify some of the evidence which is specified in the mapping document that this is available. Clearly, you should also verify the evidence submitted by the trainer which should include verifying references and referees, confirming the authenticity of evidence, requesting additional evidence where required.
This evidence should obviously complement the other normal evidence that you will be retaining on the trainer’s file such as the CV, employment / contract agreement, copies of qualifications, completed trainer matrix, evidence of professional development, et cetera. I recommend that you implement an arrangement to review this competency mapping information approximately every six months to ensure that it maintains its currency.
Why not just go and RPL?
When you consider all the effort required to demonstrate vocational equivalent competency, would it not be simpler just to go get RPL and have the relevant units issued? The regulator would not advocate this, and I do not particularly advocate this approach either. A trainer who truly holds vocational equivalent competency should not be expected to go and RPL often to a lower level qualification just to satisfy a requirement in the standards. The problem is this requirement in the standards is so subjective that it really is a lottery sometimes in how equivalent competency evidence will be interpreted. The only way to really remove the subjectivity is to hold the units of competency hence the option of RPL. On a number of occasions where a client has been responding to a non-compliance for equivalent vocational competency, we have utilised RPL as a strategy to verify the trainer’s competency and to provide evidence of the achieved qualification and units of competency as rectification evidence. Providing that the trainer has the industry experience, this is a solid strategy at converting a subjective compliance situation to completely objective and removing the power from the auditor. Notwithstanding this, during the normal operation of the RTO, always preference the approach of strengthening the evidence of equivalent vocational competency over requiring trainers to undertake an RPL process. Whilst an expedient strategy, it is often costly and insulting to the trainer who will often hold higher related qualifications.
Conclusion
If you intend to use trainers who do not actually hold the competencies they are delivering, this article is relevant to you. Other than non-compliance with assessment, the RTO using trainers who could not provide evidence of vocational competency is one of the most common non-compliances that we see. This is one of those poorly defined compliance requirements in the standards which is why it is highly subjective between different auditors. Your objective should be to prepare your trainer records in such a way that they rise above the subjectivity and would be considered compliant by the vast majority of auditors. I know that good trainers can be hard to come by but, don’t fall into the trap of accepting flimsy evidence of vocational competency. Verify everything and make sure that you can provide evidence that directly demonstrates the trainer’s competency in the units of competency they are delivering.
Good training,
Joe Newbery
Published: 13th October 2020
Copyright © Newbery Consulting 2020. All rights reserved.
VET News – 25th September 2020
|
Fees Paid in Advance
The most recent of these trends is the regulatory focus on fees paid in advance for services being delivered. In the past three or four months, I have noticed a spike in audit outcomes that include findings in relation to fees paid in advance. I have also received an increased number of questions from clients about the rules relating to students paying fees in advance for services being delivered particularly in relation to the shift toward virtual service delivery. Clause 7.3 of the Standards for Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) 2015, specifically says the following:
“7.3. Where the RTO requires, either directly or through a third party, a prospective or current learner to prepay fees in excess of a total of $1500 (being the threshold prepaid fee amount), the RTO must meet the requirements set out in the Requirements for Fee Protection in Schedule 6.”
VET News – 10th September 2020
|
Fees Paid in Advance
Fees Paid in Advance
I find it interesting how we observe trends in compliance. It is an important aspect of our work because, it enables us to identify a trend in audit practices or compliance early so that we can ensure current and future clients benefit from this knowledge. The most recent of these trends is the regulatory focus on fees paid in advance for services being delivered. In the past three or four months, I have noticed a spike in audit outcomes that include findings in relation to fees paid in advance. I have also received an increased number of questions from clients about the rules relating to students paying fees in advance for services being delivered particularly in relation to the shift toward virtual service delivery. Clause 7.3 of the Standards for Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) 2015, specifically says the following:
“7.3. Where the RTO requires, either directly or through a third party, a prospective or current learner to prepay fees in excess of a total of $1500 (being the threshold prepaid fee amount), the RTO must meet the requirements set out in the Requirements for Fee Protection in Schedule 6.”
Only applicable to individual learners
The first thing I would point out about this clause is that, it only relates to where an RTO requires a fee payment from a prospective or current “learner”. A “learner” is defined in the standards as a “person” being trained and assessed. So, this clause is not applicable where the RTO is requiring a payment from a business or non-person entity. If your RTO is delivering services to another business and the invoice is being issued and paid directly to the business, the restriction on fees which can be prepaid is not applicable. This clause is only applicable if you are collecting fees directly from a person as a consumer.
What if I only charge fees in arrears?
If you charge fees in arrears or at the end of the course prior to issuing the certificate, this clause (7.3) is not applicable to you. The only additional information I would mention here is that, you are not obliged to issue any AQF certificate unless the student has paid the full fee amount. The RTO is entitled to withhold issuing the certificate if the student has not fully paid their fees.
What does “prepay” mean?
There is no definition within the standard for “Prepay” or “Prepaid” or for that matter within the NVR Act. Obviously, it has a common meaning which is “paid for in advance”. Prepaid in advance of what? This is not specified in clause 7.3, but the very common and accepted interpretation is prepaid in advance of services being delivered. Schedule 6 is referenced in the clause and it does specify a number of times that the prepayment of fees relates to “services to be provided by the RTO”. Technically, you could make the argument that this is only applicable to unconditional financial guarantees and tuition assurance scheme approved by the VET Regulator. But, in the interests of having a basis to interpret the clause (7.3) let’s all agree that, when the clause refers to the prepayment of fees in excess of a total of $1500, it is meaning that prepayment is in advance of the services to be provided by the RTO.
What does “services” mean?
The standard does provide a definition for the word “services” it says:
“Services mean training, assessment, related educational and support services and/or any activities related to the recruitment of prospective learners. It does not include services such as student counselling, mediation or ICT support.”
So, one thing that you should take out of this definition is that services in the context of an RTO means training and assessment and related support services. A common question from clients in this space relates to the issuance of course material early in the course particularly when it is online. As an example, let’s say that the learner is seeking to enrol into a qualification that has 10 units of competency delivered online. The RTO has all 10 units of competency prepared in their learning management system with all course resources available and ready for the student to engage with. The RTO might argue that in opening up all 10 units to the learner at the commencement of the course with access to all learning and assessment resources, this constitutes the “service” being delivered and therefore, the RTO can invoice the total course fee at the beginning of the course.
I do not accept that making materials available online constitutes delivering training and assessment services. Training and assessment occurs only when the student actually engages the learning content and completes learning activities and undertakes assessment whether that be online or face-to-face. So, I do not agree with the rationale that just because the RTO provides the learner access to resources for a certain number of units of competency that this constitutes providing the services of training and assessment.
My strong advice is that the RTO define “services” to mean delivering training and assessment to achieve units of competency. If you want to define a specific point when a service is complete (so that you can charge for the next service) it is when the learner has completed the learning and assessment and is assessed as competent in the unit of competency. Using the achievement of units of competency as the basis of defining the delivery of the service provides the RTO a basis to determine the amount of prepaid fees it charges as a proportion as the course progresses whilst keeping under the prepaid fee amount threshold ($1500).
What about enrolment fees?
Let’s also consider the words from the service definition of “any activities related to the recruitment of prospective learners”. As an example, a student makes an enquiry with an RTO about a course. The RTO responds to the enquiry by contacting the prospective student and spends some time discussing the training options for the student. The RTO then provides the prospective student with pre-enrolment information and access to an online enrolment form on the RTO website. The student then completes the enrolment form which is processed by the RTO who then sends the student an online language literacy and numeracy assessment to gather information about potential needs for support and verify suitability for the course. The RTO processes the results of this LLN assessment to determine that the student is suitable and requires no special support at this point and sends a letter confirming the enrolment. The RTO also initiates the process of introducing the student to the trainer and provides access to related resources. All this activity cost money for the RTO to administer the enrolment, engage with the learner prior to enrolment, to provide pre-enrolment information, prepare and send correspondence and determine support requirements, et cetera. It is totally valid for the RTO to see this as part of the services they deliver and for that to be taken into account as part of any consideration of the prepaid fee amount threshold.
I do think it is acceptable for an RTO to collect an appropriate amount of money as enrolment fee. You will need to value this based on your own operation but typically this amount is around the $200 mark. The RTO can collect an enrolment fee when the student makes an application and after the enrolment is confirmed, that “service” is now complete. The RTO can then collect an additional payment in advance before commencing the actual training and assessment up to the prepaid fee amount threshold ($1500). There may be the view that in this scenario, the RTO has in-fact collected $1700 prior to the training and assessment commencing. This view does not place an appropriate value on the services delivered as part of the “activities related to the recruitment of prospective learners”. Where an RTO can go wrong with this approach is by charging an excessive amount as enrolment fee. I have seen some RTOs attempt to charge $1500 as enrolment fee which in my view cannot be justified. My advice would be to put a proper and realistic value on the cost of the recruitment and only charge an amount that can be justified for the services being delivered.
Prior to commencement or in advance of services being delivered
Another common misunderstanding in relation to the requirements for the prepayment of fees is the confusion between how much an RTO can charge prior to the course commencing and how much the RTO can charge in advance of services being delivered. In part, this confusion comes from previous standards and particularly the AQTF 2010 release and the superseded NVR Standards. Both of these standards imposed a different amount that could be charged prior to commencement ($1000) and in advance of services being delivered ($1500). I still come across RTO fee schedules and Student Handbook information which still specify this. This requirement is no longer current. With the introduction of the Standards for RTOs in 2015, the concept of differentiating amounts paid prior to commencement versus in advance of services being delivered was removed. Regardless of when you collect fees from students, at no time can it exceed the prepaid fee amount threshold and you should have a very clear understanding of how those prepaid fees relate to the services being delivered and are proportioned.
Proportioning fee payments in advance of services being delivered
So far in this article we have unpacked the concept of services and understand that services relate to delivery of actual training and assessment, support services and activities related to recruitment. I find an area that clients are sometimes confused is how to proportion the prepaid fees relating to the training and assessment. Some clients may choose to allocate the fees based on the course duration. So, assume the course is delivered over 12 months (4 Terms) and the total course fee is $7000. The RTO may plan to collect $1500 at the commencement of each Term with the balance being collected in a combination as an enrolment fee and a completion fee. In this scenario, the RTO is basing the collection of fees on a period of time, in this case a Term. Whilst this looks fine on fee schedule, it is often difficult to administer because as we all appreciate, students progress at different rates and, it also does not recognise that the costs to the RTO are not always equal for every Term. I also reviewed a fee schedule recently which identified the collection of fees paid in advance based on the percentage of the course completed. The problem I have with this is that there was no information provided to the prospective learner to define what substantiated a particular percentage. As an example it required a fee payment at 25% of the course. How does the student or for that matter the RTO know they have reached 25%?
It basically comes down to costing the services based on some type of measure and I would recommend that measure be the units of competency being delivered. I am sure that others will have equally valid concepts but using the units of competency satisfies most requirements. It enables the RTO to put a valid cost on each unit delivery and charge accordingly as the course progresses. It also means that the fees being paid by the learner have a specific end point when they are assessed as competent and awarded the unit of competency. The completion of one or more units of competency relating to the prepaid fee amount also acts as a clear trigger for the RTO to initiate the next fee payment. This can be proportioned for one or more units of competency at a time as long as the fee charged does not exceed the $1500. Happy that others will have their own view on this but, my strong advice is to use the units of competency as the basis for proportioning the fees to be paid in advance.
I also don’t mind a weekly or periodic debit. Lets say the course is $5000 and is delivered over 40 weeks. Not withstanding any enrolment fees, et cetera, the student would have a weekly direct debit of $125. This can help everyone to manage their cashflow but can be challenging on the accounting administration to manage and reconcile. If the student is progressing as intended, no problems. If the student’s progress begins to slide, there is a risk that the total debit amount can accumulate to exceed the prepaid fee amount threshold as compared with the students progress. This can make it tricky to manage. I personally would stick to using the units of competency as the basis for proportioning the fee payments.
Other options in Schedule 6
Schedule 6 to the standards for RTOs provides a number of options where an RTO is collecting fees in excess of the prepaid fee amount threshold. Ignoring government entities and universities, the RTO may hold an unconditional financial guarantee from a bank operating in Australia or may hold a current membership of a Tuition Assurance Scheme. Let’s have a look at these options.
Unconditional financial guarantee
Taking out an unconditional financial guarantee from a bank is basically the same as taking out a loan where an agreed amount of money often secured by an asset is put aside by the bank to be used in the event of provider default and the need to cover the costs of reimbursing currently enrolled students. This can often be expensive, will draw down on any equity you may have available in the asset and you will pay a significant service fee typically on a six-monthly basis. Obviously the cost of this depends on how much money you are seeking the bank to guarantee. This amount is determined by calculating the total amount of prepaid fees held by the RTO which are in excess of the prepaid fee amount threshold. Let’s look at a bold example. Say an RTO has 120 learners undertaking a course that costs $5500. Because the RTO has a financial guarantee, they are collecting the total amount upfront resulting in a total fee collection of $660,000 less the prepaid fee amount threshold of $1500 per student ($180,000) resulting in a total amount of prepaid fees being held by the RTO of $480,000. This is basically the amount you would need to secure as an unconditional financial guarantee. But, there is some scope to reduce this number further by taking into account the proportion of services which have been delivered to each student and calculating the residual amount which is outstanding. You would need to calculate this on an individual learner or cohort basis to then calculate the total residual prepaid fee amount at any one time giving you a more accurate average amount which needs to be guaranteed. This can vary greatly depending on your enrolment frequency. If you enrol large cohorts at the same time, then you would need to guarantee the maximum amount collected at the beginning of the enrolment. If you have a rolling enrolment then the average prepaid amount will be lower because some students are more advanced than others. We have experienced clients in the past paying the bank significant fees for the privilege of having a financial guarantee and often clients will overestimate the amount that needs to be guaranteed. This is generally not for the majority of domestic RTOs.
If you choose to establish an unconditional financial guarantee from a bank, I recommend that you retain evidence of how you calculated the guarantee amount in comparison with your financial records. You also need to provide the regulator with documentation supplied by the bank which confirms your unconditional financial guarantee. Over the years I have discovered during audits that the client is claiming to have an unconditional financial guarantee but, when I reviewed the documentation it had expired or was no longer valid. If you choose to use this option you will need to maintain the currency of the guarantee.
Tuition Assurance Schemes
The other option available is to hold a current membership to a Tuition Assurance Scheme. There is no currently approved Tuition Assurance Scheme available to RTOs under the Standards for RTOs 2015. The Australian Government does manage the Tuition Protection Scheme and you can access more information about this at the following website (Click). This service is only applicable to those RTOs delivering training to international students as a registered CRICOS provider and VET Student Loan (VSL) provider.
A very common point of confusion here is that people often confuse the Australian Government Tuition Protection Scheme as a Tuition Assurance Scheme. To be clear, when an RTO is paying a levy into the Tuition Protection Scheme (CRICOS and VSL requirement), for the purpose of clause 7.3, Schedule 6 of the Standards for RTOs this provides the RTO with coverage as a Tuition Assurance Scheme, but only for those students who are enrolled under a CRICOS or VSL pathway. Of course, the ESOS Act also requires that not more than 50 per cent of the fees for an overseas student be prepaid (unless the student chooses to pay more). The TPS is currently going through a review and changes are expected to be announced in 2021 which may open it to domestic non-VSL providers. The important thing to note is that the TPS is an approved Tuition Assurance Scheme for the purposes of clause 7.3 but only for those students who are enrolled under a CRICOS or VSL pathway. The TPS is not an approved Tuition Assurance Scheme for any other enrolment type.
Let’s look at an example
Just to bring it all together, let’s look at an example of a domestic RTO delivering a Certificate IV qualification which has 16 units of competency over 12 months. For the purposes of this scenario, let’s assume that all of the units of competency have an equal weighting in terms of the training and assessment required. Let’s say the RTO is charging $5250 as a total course fee. The RTO charges an enrolment application fee of $250, which is fine. This leaves a residual amount for the training and assessment to be delivered of $5000. This results in an average unit cost of $312.50. We need to work out how many units of competency we can realistically charge for in advance of services being delivered without exceeding the prepaid fee amount threshold of $1500. If we charge for five units of competency in advance it will exceed this amount at $1562.50. If we charge for only four units of competency in advance, then the fee payment is $1250. To charge the total amount of fees, we would need to charge $1250 in four payments every 4 units of competency.
But, there are many ways that you could structure the fees in relation to this scenario. As another example, you could have simply charged $1500 for five units in advance (5 units at $1500 x 3 payment = $4500) and then collected the final $500 payment for the final unit of competency on completion (prior to the issuance of any certificate). This would maximise the amount that you are charging in advance for the services being delivered and lowers the administration costs by reducing the number of payments. At the end of the day, there are many ways to do it, just don’t exceed the prepaid fee amount threshold as a proportion of the services being delivered. 🙂
Conclusion
I hope this information has been useful. As a general point regarding complying with clause 7.3, I would advise you not to be too tricky. I find that when clients get into trouble in this space, it is because they have tried to be too tricky in the way they structure their payments and define the “services” being delivered. As I said at the start of this article, the regulator does seem to have a little focus on this particular clause so, please take the opportunity to review your fee schedule and fee collection arrangements and make sure that you are compliant.
I love it when a client has a fee schedule that complies with the requirement and then during the audit I will request fee payment records for a sample of students and discover that the fees were not particularly collected according to the schedule. This is the difference between strategy and practices. Compliance is primarily about the outcomes being demonstrated by the RTO. Do yourself a favour and request your accounts or administrative area to provide payment records for a sample of students across different courses and see what turns up.
You can find more guidance on protecting fees paid by students at the following standards guide on the national regulators website (Click).
Good training,
Joe Newbery
Published: 10th September 2020
Copyright © Newbery Consulting 2020. All rights reserved.
VET News – 27th August 2020
|
VET News – 13th August 2020
|
VET News – 30th July 2020
|
VET News – 10th July 2020
|
VET News – 25th June 2020
|
VET News – 10th June 2020
|
VET News – 13th May 2020
|
VET News – 30th April 2020
|
VET News – 31st March 2020
|
VET News – 28th February 2020
|
VET News – 11th December 2019
|
VET News – 25th November 2019
|
Cost of setting up an RTO
A question that I am asked regularly is, what is the cost of setting up an RTO? It is one of those questions that is big and difficult to answer, hence the reason for this article. Sometimes, I think potential clients asking me this question are just wanting a simple answer like “$80,000”. It is just not possible to actually answer the question accurately without giving consideration to many factors. This article will focus on those factors and give you the tools to identify the set up costs applicable to your planned RTO. This article will focus on the costs associated with preparing and submitting the RTO application to the point where you have achieved registration and are listed on the national training register.
RTO Change of Ownership
RTO Change of Ownership
On the 31st October 2019, the National Regulator implemented a new policy relating to the change of ownership of an existing RTO. I have had an opportunity to review the new self-assessment document and guide and have put together this article to explain the requirements to those considering the purchase or sale of an RTO. You can access the self-assessment document and guide at the following link:
https://www.asqa.gov.au/sites/default/files/201910/self-assessment-change-
There is a lot of complexity here so I thought I would break it down to some key points:
- Essentially submitting an application for change of RTO ownership (where the RTO is not operating) is basically the same as submitting an application for a brand-new RTO registration.
- If the RTO is operating with ongoing enrolments, etc, then the evidence requirement is slightly reduced to only Part A of the self-assessment.
- There is no application fee for a change of ownership notification because it is essentially a notification of material change in the RTO operation.
- The notification needs to be accompanied by a completed self-assessment which is about a 40 page document that covers the same clauses and standards as initial registration and requires the same level of evidence.
- Once the application is submitted with the supporting evidence, there is no further opportunity to supply additional or updated evidence. Same as initial registration.
- The notification for change of ownership may be subject to a regulatory audit which also means that the regulator will charge a fee to the registered entity for the conduct of the audit. We have submitted lots of these applications for clients and they have never triggered an audit. I imagine that if the evidence that you submit is non-compliant, it could trigger an audit.
- If the audit results in non-compliance, the regulator may issue a written direction to address the non-compliance, or impose conditions on the registration, for issue a notice of intent to impose sanctions or cancelled the registration. In other words, the transaction of selling the RTO now triggers a full regulatory audit and this exposes the organisation to regulatory risk. This means that the evidence submitted in the self-assessment must be highly compliant. Same as initial registration.
- The regulator has also identified that an RTO that has a change of ownership will also face additional scrutiny in the 12 months after the compliance activity is finalised. This scrutiny will be applied to any applications to change scope of registration from training providers during this period, and through a provider review at the conclusion of the period. Both of these activities may trigger regulatory action, which could include further compliance audits.
- The application is submitted on ASQAnet as a material change notification. This notification must be made as soon as practicable after the event and no later than 90 calendar days after. You definitely do not want to delay the notification.
Just as a little commentary, essentially the application is the same as an initial registration. The only advantage in going down this pathway is that the organisation which is purchasing the RTO can start using its registration immediately as opposed to waiting the 8 to 12 months time frame to achieve initial registration. The cost of the change of ownership could potentially be more than initial registration application fee and you have the additional scrutiny for the first 12 months as opposed to initial registration where this additional scrutiny is 24 months.
Notification and Evidence Requirements
The fact sheet is fairly clear, but I did need to read it a couple of time to make full sense of the requirements to notify the regulator of the change and what evidence must be submitted with the material change notification. Here is a break down:
- 1% up to 14% Ownership Change in 12 months. No notification or evidence required.
- 15% up to 49% Ownership Change in 12 months. Material Change Notification required with a Fit and Proper Person declaration of any new owners.
- 50% up to 99% Ownership Change in 12 months. Material Change Notification required with a Fit and Proper Person declaration of any new owners and the Part A additional evidence.
- 100% Ownership Change in 12 months. Material Change Notification required with a Fit and Proper Person declaration of any new owners and the Part A and B additional evidence only if the RTO has no ongoing students, or had no more than 10 students complete a course within the previous 12 months of registration. So, if you have any ongoing students or had more that 10 student complete a course in the previous 12 months than you will only be required to submit Part A.
I can only assume that the rationale for the “no ongoing students or less then 10 student completions in the last 12 months” is to require the additional evidence under part B particularly in situations where an RTO may have been registered for the purpose of selling. The commodification of an RTO registration is really the practice that this policy is targeting and so, it is reasonable that additional evidence is required in this fairly narrow circumstance.
Additional Evidence that must be submitted with the change of ownership notification
The evidence which must be submitted with the self-assessment includes:
ASQA Self-assessment for Change of Ownership (click) including the following supporting evidence:
Section 1—Training and assessment (Part A)
- training and assessment strategies for each training product being applied for (Click). Each training and assessment strategy must provide evidence about:
- the training product code and title
- describe the target cohort / learner
- entry requirements
- nominated units of competency
- pre-requisites or co-requisites
- sequence of unit delivery
- details of the amount of training
- statement of rationale justifying the amount of training
- strategies to vary the amount of training for learners with different needs
- work placement arrangements / requirements
- planned assessment activities, methods and events
- planned assessment resources
- details of planned student and teacher ratios
- other resources required for training and assessment including learning resources, human resources and physical resources such as equipment
- arrangements for ongoing review and continuous improvement of the training and assessment strategy
- arrangements for work placement and structured workplace learning
- detailed course program that identifies the planned learning and assessment activities and shows how these are sequenced and structured over the course duration
- details of class scheduling arrangements including timetabling documents for each delivery location
- list of developed learning resources that support the delivery of each unit of competency including learning references, learner guides, presentation tools, practical activity instructions, et cetera
- list of all assessment tools that support the delivery of each unit of competency including assessor instructions, marking guides, recording tools, mapping documents, learner instructions, et cetera
- list of all equipment and resources that support the delivery of each unit of competency that are owned by the RTO
- details of workplace resources where these are being accessed within a workplace including all facilities and equipment relating to the range of planned work of the learner (if applicable)
- details of work placement arrangements including templates to be used for determining the suitability of workplace, supervision requirements, minimum equipment and resource requirements, scope of work requirements, et cetera (if applicable)
- evidence of ownership, lease or access agreement for any planned delivery sites where training and assessment will be conducted
- floorplans of proposed delivery sites showing areas to be used for classroom training, practical application and skill development, amenities and breakout areas
- contractual agreement with an employer where training and assessment is to be conducted at specific employer premises (if applicable)
Section 2—Regulatory compliance and governance (Part A)
Financial Viability Risk Assessment (click) with the following supporting documents:
- business plan which provides the following information:
- a company overview, description of the business including funding sources, target market, identified student cohort, key clients and industries, proposed courses, operating locations, equipment and facilities
- business goals and objectives
- strategic long-term direction of the organisation as a registered training organisation
- market analysis of industry including locations, methods of delivery, industry demand and competitor analysis
- analysis of business strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats
- information about the organisation structure including position titles and names of staff members
- Proposed RTO Details, including:
- entity details
- type of training organisation
- group structure
- key personnel
- delivery sites
- fee payment protection arrangements
- status of current superannuation liabilities
- status of PAYG/GST liabilities
- basis of accounting
- insurance coverage including public liability and WorkCover
- unresolved legal disputes
- contingent liabilities in existence
- contingent access to funding options
- Financial projections for at least the next 24 months, including:
- profit and loss forecast
- balance sheets
- cash flow forecasts
- bank account, debtors and creditors
- forecast student numbers and course fees
- forecast operating expenses
- Financial viability supporting evidence requirements:
- Signed nominated accountants certificate
- Completed Financial Viability Risk Assessment Spreadsheet
- Business Plan with attached financial projections
- Financial statements (last two years)
- Bank statements – within 1 week of application
- Bank statements – as at most recent month end
- Bank statements – as at most recent financial year end
- Bank reconciliations – as at most recent financial year end
- Bank reconciliations – as at most recent month end
- ATO Portal – integrated client account
- ATO repayment plan (if applicable)
- Aged debtors ledger- as at most recent financial year end (if applicable)
- Aged debtors ledger- as at most recent month end (if applicable)
- Aged creditors ledger- as at most recent financial year end (if applicable)
- Aged creditors ledger- as at most recent month end (if applicable)
- Deed of guarantees or other legally enforceable instruments (if applicable)
Section 3—Marketing and recruitment (Part B)
- the planned course brochures that will be used for the purposes of advertising and marketing for each training product
- Policy and procedure for marketing and advertising
Section 4—Enrolment (Part B)
- the planned learner handbook that will be supplied to prospective learners prior to their enrolment to inform them about their rights and obligations
- the planned fee schedule that will be supplied to prospective learners prior to their enrolment to inform them about fees and related charges
- customised learner enrolment application and declaration/agreement
- customised enrolment interview form to determine the learners training and learner support requirements
- policy and procedure for learner enrolment
- policy and procedure for fees and payments and refunds
Section 5—Support and progression (Part B)
- third party agreements with external support service providers (if applicable)
- policy and procedure for learner support services
- policy and procedure for core skills assessment
copy of LLN assessment tools and guides
Section 6 —Training and assessment (Part B)
- evidence of industry engagement that has been undertaken to inform the relevance of the training and assessment being provided. This needs to include the details of the industry representatives that were engaged with, the lessons learned and evidence of how these lessons were taken into account in the development of the course.
- details of staff members or external providers who are nominated to provide support services (if applicable)
- Complete assessment tools and resources for each unit of competency nominated for explicit delivery. This needs to include detailed instructions for the candidate, instructions for the assessor, assessment recording tools, assessment mapping and any supporting documents such as templates and policies.
- List of complete assessment tools and resources for each unit of competency nominated for explicit delivery in support of a qualification. This needs to include detailed instructions for the candidate, instructions for the assessor, assessment recording tools, assessment mapping and any supporting documents such as templates and policies.
- Policy and procedure for competency assessment
evidence of employment agreements or contracts with all planned trainers and assessors including employees and contractors - Evidence that verifies the competency and currency of nominated trainers, including a certified and scanned copy of relevant vocational qualifications and certificates, training and assessment qualification, certificates relating to recent professional development, staff matrix, professional development plan, evidence of industry currency and ongoing practice
Section 7—Regulatory compliance and governance (Part B)
- Third party written agreements for organisations or persons delivering services on behalf of the RTO (if applicable)
- Policy and procedure to manage third party arrangements (if applicable)
- example AQF certificate including both a qualification certificate and example statement of attainment
- Policy and procedure for issuing AQF certificates
Other Evidence
- Entity records including:
- ASIC company certificate
- ASIC company historical extract
- ASIC business name registration
- ABN certificate
- ASIC company historical extract of parent entities (showing change of ownership)
- Change of Chief Executive Officer Statutory Declaration (click). To be completed and submitted by the newly appointed chief executive officer.
- Fit and Proper Person Requirements Declaration (click) from the following persons:
- Executive officer/s. An executive officer is any person who takes part in the management of your organisation or is partly responsible for the management or decision making for your organisation.
- Examples of ‘executive officers’ that must complete a Fit and proper person declaration include:
- a director of the company
- a secretary of the company
- a chief executive of the RTO
- a principal executive officer of the CRICOS provider
- Examples of ‘executive officers’ that must complete a Fit and proper person declaration include:
- High managerial agent/s. A high managerial agent is an employee or agent who represents your organisation in relation to the business of providing courses.
- Examples of ‘high managerial agents’ where ASQA may request completion of a FPP declaration include:
- a consultant or employee with an ongoing role related to regulatory compliance
- a consultant or employee who represents your organisation at audit
- an agent who recruits students on behalf of your organisation, or
- people employed by third-party organisations who fulfil any of the roles described above on behalf of your organisation
- people employed by third-party organisations who provide training and/or assessment on behalf of your organisation.
- Examples of ‘high managerial agents’ where ASQA may request completion of a FPP declaration include:
- Owners and executive officers. The term ‘owner and executive officer’ includes:
- any person who owns 15 per cent or more of your organisation
- any person who is entitled to receive 15 per cent or more of
- dividends paid by your organisation
- any trustees of a trust associated with the organisation
relevant persons in associated entities.
- Executive officer/s. An executive officer is any person who takes part in the management of your organisation or is partly responsible for the management or decision making for your organisation.
When planning the purchase or sale of an RTO, the regulatory requirements relating to the sale must be considered and incorporated into the sale process. Buyers of an RTO should be extremely wary of any RTO that is for sale that does not fully inform the purchaser of these requirements and establishes arrangements to comply with these requirements as part of the sale process. Importantly, you need to consider who is going to meet the cost of this change of ownership notification and who is going to prepare all of the evidence for the submission. This also needs to take into account if non-compliance is identified during this process and any possible sanctions or written directions. We do provide a service to assist clients with the change of ownership notification process which is outlined at the following page:
https://newberyconsulting.com.au/product/change-of-ownership/
Good training,
Joe Newbery
Published: 14th November 2019
Copyright © Newbery Consulting 2018. All rights reserved.
VET News – 7th November 2019
|
VET News – 25th October 2019
|
VET News – 27th September 2019
|
VET News – 6th September 2019
|
VET News – 16th August 2019
|
VET News – 2nd August 2019
|
Vet News – 3rd July 2019
|
VET News – 21st June 2019
|
RTO Set Up Cost
RTO Set Up Cost
Introduction
A question that I am asked regularly is, what is the cost of setting up an RTO? It is a good question to consider early in your planning. It is one of those questions that is big and difficult to answer, hence the reason for this article.
Sometimes, I think potential clients asking me this question are just wanting a simple answer like “$80,000”. It is just not possible to actually answer the question accurately without giving consideration to many factors. This article will focus on those factors and give you the tools to identify the set up costs applicable to your planned RTO. There are many websites and articles on the internet about the costs associated with setting up a business generally and these should also be considered in your overall research and planning. We will focus on the costs associated with preparing and submitting the RTO application to the point where you have achieved registration and are listed on the national training register.
Considering the cost before you launch your RTO registration project is critical. I have seen clients launch into a project to start an RTO only to “put things on hold” latter when they realise the cost of the set up was more than they had expected.
I hope that the considerations raised in this article will help you to undertake proper planning in order to maximise your potential of success. Training the workforce is a rewarding business to operate. Good planning will ensure you reap those rewards both professionally and financially.
Planning and Research
Taking the time to think through and analyse all aspects of the proposed RTO is so critical before you jump straight in. Remember the 6P’s, Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance. The time you spend planning your new venture is a valuable investment. The more you know prior to actually committing funds, will increase your prospects of success exponentially. The fact that you are reading this article, is a good sign that you are planning and researching.
These are the top things that you need to plan and research:
- The training products
- The mode of training
- Consulting fees
- Accounting fees
- Your time
- Trainers and Assessors
- Facilities and equipment
- Student Management Systems
- Business establishment costs
- Application fees
The Training Products
A “Training Product” is the language used in the Standards for RTOs to describe the following:
- Qualifications
- Units of competency
- Accredited courses
- Skill sets
The cost of your RTO will largely be influenced by the type of training you want to deliver. It makes sense. The cost of setting up a business course as an example is less that setting up to deliver campus based automotive mechanical training. The selection of the training products you want to deliver may largely be based on your passion and own area of competency. Whilst this is a good thing, it also needs to be informed by objective and in-depth market and feasibility analysis. Market and feasibility analysis will be the subject of a separate article. My point is, when selecting the courses that you want to deliver as an RTO, you need to consider the cost associated with training those skills. A basic cost fundamental in the training industry is, the cost of training cognitive (thinking) skills is less than training practical skills. I can train a person in risk analysis with a whiteboard. To train someone in carpentry will require a big enclosed space such as a warehouse or shed with lots of tools and materials. You get my point.
When selecting your training products, give consideration to the following:
- Undertake a detailed market analysis. What is the demand and potential for future growth of the occupation or work function that you are considering training? Are there differences in this potential between your local area or region compared to a state and national level? Where are the job vacancies? Who are the major employers? Are there any licencing requirements? Who is the target learner and what is their typical stage of life, availability, motivation, etc? At a minimum, get onto job outlook and do some research on the target occupation that you are considering training (Job Outlook).
- Identify the training products. You would be surprised how many people contact me about wanting to register an RTO and are not aware of the national training register nor do they know the training product they want to deliver. Seriously, if this describes you then I am so glad that you are taking the time to research. You need to be familiar with the national training register and undertake relevant searches to identify the actual training products that you are seeking to deliver. You can access the national training register at the following link (training.gov.au). The main piece of advice I would give you in searching the national training register is to exclude all training products that are non-current and remember, this is not a shopping trip! Every course that you pick will carry significant cost in order to bring it to delivery. It is wise to start small and increase your training offering over time. I can tell you after 15 years’ experience of registering RTO’s, those clients with a smaller and more manageable scope are typically more successful in the long run. The main point is, identify the specific training product that you want to deliver by its code and title.
- Undertake a competitor analysis. Who are the existing RTOs already servicing your intended market both at a local, regional, state and national level? Once you have identified your training products, you can identify the current RTOs delivering each training product by selecting the link on the training product record on the national training register. Just look for “Find RTOs approved to deliver this qualification”. As an example, the following link will provide you a list of the current RTOs delivering the qualification ICT40518 – Certificate IV in Programming (Click). Looking at the data on Job Outlook compared with the number of providers for this qualification, it is interesting that programming is an area of very strong growth and there are only 14 RTOs delivering the qualification. Some of these 14 providers might have it on scope but most likely don’t actually deliver the qualification. This is common. The only way to really find out is visit their website or call and ask. I would also look at the relevant qualification at the AQF level below and above this level to put together a list of the top competitors. By investigating the top 10 competitors, you can do a comparison of mode of delivery, course cost, payment schedule, funding or subsidy arrangements, delivery locations, extent of advertising, entry requirements, website quality, facilities and resources, target market, training schedule, et cetera. If you really want to be cheeky, you can contact these businesses and make an enquiry to determine their level of customer service and course structure. By appreciating your competitors, it will inform your decision about the training products to be delivered and to identify the opportunities in the current market.
- Availability of training material. I often say to clients that developing or acquiring and customising the training and assessment material is the elephant in the room in regard to the time and cost of registering the RTO. Very few clients either have the capacity or the expertise to develop course material. I have certainly supported clients through a development process and actually really enjoy teaching proper course design along the way, but this takes significant time. If we are talking about a unit of competency only course then, not so bad. If we are talking about a qualification with multiple units of competency, the development of the learning and assessment material for a course like this can take up to 12 months working on a part-time basis. I know that sounds like an outrageous amount of time, but seriously people generally think they have way more time that they actually do.
- It is much more common for a client to purchase course materials from a commercial supplier. Of course, there are a myriad of material suppliers based both in Australia and overseas. I will provide an article in the future about selecting commercial learning and assessment resources; however, the key things to consider are the availability, currency, license restrictions, compliance and cost. I should just say that it is extremely rare to find commercial resources that are fully compliant and ready to go. If you are buying commercial resources, you absolutely need to factor in time and cost to review and customise these resources to ensure they meet the requirements of training package and support your mode of delivery. Don’t complain about non-compliant resources after the audit outcome. I am telling you now, they are all non-compliant, so you just need to factor in the time and cost of customisation and conduct it as part of the process toward registration. Note. That last sentence is seriously the single most important piece of advice in this article.
- Getting resources from a friend who works in a current RTO or planning to re-badge the material from the RTO you work with? Ok, if that describes you, that is copyright and intellectual property theft. It is wrong and an infringement of other peoples rights so forget that as an option. Also, don’t assume that just because you can get the materials from a current RTO that they are compliant. Seriously, I can say with about 95% certainty that they are not compliant. “But, the RTO just passed audit”, it doesn’t matter, the likelihood that the auditor actually sampled that unit or qualification and the risk that the auditor was a lightweight are factors to consider. Get your assessments audited by an assessment expert who has audit experience before you blindly rely on them being compliant. Also, if that person gives you advice about what changes to make, make those changes to the letter and then get them to check the final product.
Once you have completed your market analysis, identified the training products, conducted your competitor analysis and identified viable course materials, you can then settle on a final list of training products to move forward with in your planning. Keep an open mind as you move forward. As you progress through the process, you undoubtedly will learn new opportunities, but always make decisions based on good analysis.
The mode of delivery
The mode of delivery clearly has a significant impact on the expected setup costs. There are four main modes of delivery to consider. These are:
- Classroom delivery. Classroom delivery includes really anything that is campus-based or delivered at the RTO premises. This takes into account not only delivery in an actual classroom but also workshop delivery and practical training at the RTO. It really encompasses anything where the learner actually attends the RTO premises or training venue. The costs associated with classroom delivery are fairly obvious including facilities, equipment, staffing, et cetera. If your training involves lots of practical skills, classroom delivery is often the best choice particularly where you can schedule cohorts or groups of students at the same time in order to achieve an efficiency in the learner to trainer ratio. The biggest cost in most businesses is the wages of employees such as trainers. Whilst it is attractive to outsource the equipment and resources to a workplace delivery model, this often results in training being delivered one-on-one and is less efficient than training being delivered by one trainer to 15 students at the same time. Just something to consider.
- Online delivery. Online delivery includes virtually anything that is digitally or remotely delivered. This includes traditional web-based learning activities delivered via a learning management software, video conferencing, teleconferencing, email, virtual classrooms, web-based chat rooms, distance learning, et cetera. Clients often see online delivery as a way of reducing the delivery cost and particularly their development cost. This can be the case but is often not. People often underestimate the cost of designing and developing online learning particularly if the client is after a specialist area of delivery and is looking for a particular quality outcome. There is the cost of the learning management system, content authoring software, the online learning developer, a web programmer, content purchasing, web hosting, website design and development, et cetera. Many of these costs are ongoing and not simply experienced during the development or start-up. You will need to have all of the learning developed fully before you apply.
- Workplace delivery. Workplace delivery is often the saviour of the small private provider. Workplace delivery model assumes that the RTO has trainers and equipment that is portable. The trainer attends the client’s workplace and delivers training on-site. This is often suitable for unit of competency only training such as first aid or confined space training but is also quite suitable for traineeship and apprenticeship training where the trainer attends the workplace and delivers training on the job one-on-one with the trainee or apprentice instead of the trainee or apprentice attending the RTO premises. As indicated earlier, this can often be quite expensive in terms of wages but it can reduce the cost to the RTO in terms of supplying all of the equipment and facilities to enable the training to occur. I have seen many models like this over the years and there are both advantages and disadvantages. The employer may see this as an advantage because the training is often delivered in the context of their own workplace, it can foster a positive workplace learning environment and it reduces the need for employees to leave the workplace therefore reducing the loss of productivity. The employer may also recognise the disadvantages of disruption to the workplace operation due to training occurring and tying up space or equipment to deliver training, et cetera.
- Blended delivery. The blended delivery model is overwhelmingly the most common model that we see today in the modern, small to medium size RTO. This is where we have a combination of the modes of delivery identified above. As an example, let’s say I am delivering a course in Aged Care. The course is delivered over 24 weeks which is equal to 6 months. The learner attends the RTO for classroom-based training for the first 12 weeks (term 1) four days per week. Parallel to this classroom training, the learner is also exposed to some online learning to engage in the course content and to complete self-paced assignment activities. The learner also participates in some practical training in a basic simulated training environment at the RTO premises. In the second 12 week block (term 2), the learner now attends the RTO only two days per week but is also required to attend work placement two days per week over the 12 weeks. The trainer will attend the workplace and undertake observation assessment of the learner performing tasks on the job. All along, the learner is continuing to engage in online learning and completing written assignments and submitting workplace portfolio evidence online. This blended mode of delivery involves all of the modes identified above. It is actually quite rare now to see courses which are delivered using only one mode of delivery. The blended mode of delivery is the new normal.
You can see, from the information provided above that coming up with the mode of delivery and identifying the particular costs of developing all of the arrangements and materials in support of that mode of delivery will have a direct impact on the cost of setting up the RTO. The cheapest way to deliver training is often classroom delivery using short term room hire with groups of students teaching cognitive skills such as business and administrative skills. Using strategies such as ‘bring your own device’ can further reduce the costs of providing suitable IT facilities to support learning delivery. Imagine delivering a part time Diploma of Business completely remote using a combination of online learning and timetabled virtual classroom sessions on Zoom. All of these options need to be considered in the cost before you launch yourself into the RTO registration process.
Consulting fees
The first thing I would say about consulting fees is, don’t try and do this yourself without any advice. I don’t care if you use our services or you find another consultant that you are happy with, get yourself some advice. Registering an RTO is complex. At least on a weekly basis I receive an enquiry via the website or a phone call from a prospective client who has had their application rejected by the national regulator. It is amazing to me that in many cases, the prospective client has not utilised a consultant and has prepared and submitted the application themselves. The thing about the application process these days is this, the application and application evidence needs to be spot on. I wrote an article a while back on the application evidence requirements, which is worth reading (Click). The regulator will determine your application based on the initial evidence you provide so everything needs to be right in the application evidence. There are no opportunities to submit new or additional evidence prior to the application outcome being decided.
Now, what can you expect to pay in regard to consulting fees? You absolutely need to get at least three quotes. Ask around the industry for recommendations about consultants who have a proven track record. One of the things that you will find very quickly is that Newbery Consulting is the only company in Australia that advertises our costs online. We have a fixed and published costs to register your domestic RTO for $11,000.00 with the initial payment being $7,700 and then $3,300 when you are listed on training.gov.au (Click). No other consulting company in Australia will tell you publicly how much they charge to register an RTO. It is not uncommon for a client who approaches me to assist them to fix an application to hear they have paid their previous consultant up to $30,000 or $40,000. Seriously, I am not joking! Some consulting businesses will present you with a standard package (fixed cost) and some will quote you on daily rate (cost plus). From our market analysis, we know that the average quoted consulting fee is about $25,000. I know, that is a ridiculous amount of money to pay and particularly when the application fails. The consulting fee will depend largely on how much support you need. If you want the consultant to do it all, it will cost a lot. If you are doing the groundwork yourself and are simply getting advice from the consultant, you can expect it to cost less.
What we offer. Our RTO registration service (Click) is $7,700.00 for a domestic registration. For that cost we supply the client with their complete RTO policies and procedures, all of the necessary forms and administrative tools you need to administer training and learners, the initial subscription to RTO data which is our very popular AVETMISS student management software, a detailed project plan with all of the actions necessary to submit the application, the application structure development in Dropbox and finally, consulting support. Now, this is a fairly comprehensive combination of both products and consulting support with the structure to get the application submitted. When you compare available consulting services you need to consider both the cost of the products they offer and the services they provide. You certainly should not be paying any more than $15,000 for your consulting support. The most important thing is, you need to be confident in the skills of the person you are engaging. You need to know that they will give you straight forward unvarnished advice. I mean, if they sound like a snake oil salesman, trust me, they are a snake oil salesman.
Accounting Fees
One of the costs that is not often considered by clients in registering their RTO is the cost of the accountant to undertake the financial viability risk assessment. I often point out to clients that they will need to identify an appropriate accountant who can undertake financial viability risk assessment. The default response from most enquirers is “oh, financial viability won’t be a problem”. This sort of assumption is based on their own assumption about their personal financial situation and generally does not take into account the financial position of the business which are two very different things. I won’t dive too deeply into financial viability but suffice to say that it is a lot more complicated than most people consider. You can see a snapshot of the evidence to support financial viability at the following page (Click). When the client initially goes to their everyday accountant to ask if they can complete this financial viability assessment, the vast majority of accountants confirm that they can and “just come and see me when you are ready”.
I have observed over a period of about 10 years since financial viability became a requirement that the vast majority of accountants when required to actually undertake the financial viability risk assessment then decide that they are not able to do so. Various reasons will be provided such as, I don’t have the required qualifications, my professional indemnity insurance does not cover me for that sort of activity, I have never undertaken such a risk assessment previously, I have no training in financial viability risk assessment, I simply don’t feel confident in signing such a declaration, et cetera. So, this is the first trick in getting your financial viability risk assessment completed, is finding an accountant that is both qualified and fully informed to complete the assessment.
The next thing to consider is the cost. I have seen accountants charging anywhere from $1,200 – $12,000. There was actually a business at one point (not sure if they still exist) that were advertising RTO financial viability risk assessment for as little as $600. From my perspective, this is far too cheap and it raises questions in my mind about their actual understanding of the requirement or their competency to complete a proper financial viability risk assessment. On the other end of the scale, there are accounting companies particularly based in the CBD of Sydney and Melbourne charging in the order of $7,000 – $12,000. In my view, this is just an outrageous cost. Do yourself a favour and avoid any accounting firm who is quoting you this type of fee.
Of course, it does depend on what you are asking the accountant to do. If you are expecting the accountant to prepare the entire business plan, financial plan and all of the associated evidence then of course this will cost more. I would strongly recommend that you do your best to prepare a detailed business plan and financial forecast before you go and speak to the accountant. There are some good tools and guides on developing a business plan at the following site (Click). It is really important that your forecast of student numbers, delivery model, equipment costs, wgaes, et cetera, aligns with other documents in your application. For instance, if you forecast 200 students out of one location and you only have enough trainers and training rooms to support 120 students, then there is obviously a problem with your financial forecasts and therefore your financial viability. Increasingly, the national regulator is going to this level of detail to confirm the suitability of the RTO in comparing the financial forecast to the actual capacity of the organisation. There is so much complexity in the financial viability risk assessment and in the supporting evidence. You need to make sure your accountant knows what they are doing.
We have recommended various accountants over the years. I prefer that the client is using an accountant who specialises in RTO financial viability risk assessment as this can be significantly more efficient in terms of time and cost. The accounting firm that we would recommend you contact are: Janeen Andersen @ Your RTO Accounting Specialist – Website.
Your time
It is often the case that we don’t account for our own time when setting up a business. One of the questions I often ask prospective clients is “Are you planning to do the work yourself or do you have other people to assist you?” or “How much time do you have available to commit to preparing the evidence?”. Of course, the amount of time you need will depend greatly on many of the things that we have presented in this article in terms of your delivery plan, access to good advice and availability of suitable learning and assessment resources.
I would suggest that if you are going to register an RTO and you are currently working full-time then you need to identify a minimum of 5 to 10 hours per week to dedicate to the RTO project and to preparing the application evidence. This may either be your time or the time of the person that you engage for this particular purpose. Either way, there is a cost of time. Most RTO registration projects that stall can be attributed specifically to the client underestimating the amount of time required or overestimating their availability to progress the actions. If you are going to commence an RTO registration project, you need to find a minimum of 10 hours a week. This might be two hours each evening Sunday to Thursday or 10 hours over the weekend. Obviously, how you cost that is completely up to you but if you do not allocate this type of commitment then your RTO application will not progress. Remember that, time is money!
Trainers and Assessors
If you are launching the small business as an RTO then it is likely that you are planning to deliver some of the training and assessment yourself or you will be relying on contract trainers. Unless the client is an existing business with current employees, it is very rare for a client seeking to register an RTO to have trainers and assessors already under their employ. If you are in this category, then you already know the cost of employment. For everyone else, I will focus on engaging contractors in support of your application.
A large portion of the training industry relies on contractors who provide training and assessment services in their individual area of competency. It is not uncommon for trainers to be working on behalf of multiple RTOs at the same time. These contract trainers are typically working as a sole trader with an ABN and depending on their annual turnover (i.e. over $75,000), may or may not be charging GST. The typical daily rate for a contract trainer will vary between $400 – $600 (excl). The vast majority are at the $400 per day level with only those with specific or unique capabilities attracting a higher daily rate. A client recently told me that he is struggling to find good trainers in training and assessment (TAE40116) and is paying $800 per day.
A typical strategy for an RTO seeking registration is to undertake a recruitment process looking to provisionally appoint trainers pending the successful outcome of the application. This means that you would undertake your normal advertising and recruitment process making it clear that you are seeking a contract trainer to engage once the RTO has achieved registration. An advertisement posted via the normal channels will typically attract lots of attention so be sure to be very specific about the types of skills and minimum qualification requirements in order to attract attention from only those who are suitable. Once you have identified a potential trainer, it is a good idea to enter into a contract agreement which involves only engaging the contractor on an as required basis. This is the typical way that most of these contractors work so it is a very normal arrangement for them.
Of course, to prepare the application evidence, you will need support from the trainer to establish application evidence such as certified qualifications, the detailed CV, evidence of current vocational experience, evidence of ongoing professional development, the development of the trainer matrix, et cetera. I often say to clients that it is a good practice to engage the contract trainer a couple of days work to focus on the development of this evidence. This is a demonstration of good faith and often results in better quality application evidence. It is also advisable that you require the trainer to engage in some relevant professional development particularly in relation to competency-based training and assessment.
In terms of the overall cost per trainer, it is reasonable to allocate approximately $1500 per trainer prior to the application. This cost accounts for their time to assist in the preparation of evidence and some just in time professional development. This will usually result in high quality evidence and the sound basis for a commercial relationship with the trainer moving forward once the RTO is registered.
Facilities and Equipment
It’s not really possible for me to provide you a cost estimate for your facilities and equipment. One of the most common questions I get asked is, “Do I need to have a lease on a permanent training facility”. The answer to this question is definitely, no you don’t. The national regulator recently posted a general direction about the resource requirements for applicants seeking initial registration (Click), and identifies the following types of access arrangements as suitable for the submission of an application:
- purchased premises, or
- a current lease, or
- a written agreement to rent a site pending registration, or
- plans by the applicant to hire premises as required, and as appropriate to the training product and strategies for training and assessment.
Depending on the type of training that you intend to deliver, it may be appropriate for your RTO to operate as a home-based business utilising facilities hired on a daily basis. Of course, there are many options to defer or outsource costs particularly in relation to facilities and equipment. As an example, you may not have the funds to buy a forklift to deliver your forklift course, but you can hire a forklift suitable for training on a monthly basis for as little as $290 per week. You may not be able to afford a long-term lease for that inner CBD location you want, but you can hire a classroom in the CBD fully equipped with AV for as little as $300 per day.
As a general strategy to establishing the business, I would recommend that you minimise any long-term (locked-in) financial obligations or asset purchases and focus on utilising premises on an as required basis and accessing major equipment items via a short-term lease or hire basis. Of course, this will result in marginally higher operating costs but it does give you the flexibility and peace of mind in regard to your overall liability. If you find that the training venue you have identified is not working, then you can simply move to a different training venue. It is certainly a desirable situation that if you have no training booked then you are not paying for any facility or asset that is not returning a revenue. Of course, we don’t expect this to happen, but it is important in business that you plan for all contingencies.
I should just point out that adopting a strategy as outlined above will result in higher operating costs therefore drawing down on your available asset and impacting your current ratio in regard to financial viability. There may be an argument to purchase certain equipment items utilising the government’s instant tax write-off; therefore, providing the business asset and correspondingly supporting its financial viability. You obviously need to seek advice from a qualified accountant in this regard.
The key consideration in relation to facilities and equipment is that they need to align with your proposed training product and mode of delivery. If you are proposing to deliver training in Aged Care as an example, and you have not established a suitable simulated workplace to undertake simulated training and assessment, then your application will fail. You need to undertake this level of analysis in the training package compared with your proposed delivery model to identify the necessary equipment that needs to be put in place in support of the application.
Student Management Systems
When you submit your application, you must provide evidence that you have established arrangements to utilise an AVETMISS compliant student management system to issue your outcomes and report your activity in accordance with the national VET data policy.
There are many choices when it comes to student management system. Of course, we have been supplying the VET sector AVETMISS compliant student management software for over 10 years and in the past two years have redeveloped this software as an online cloud based software as a service (RTO Data Cloud). Obviously, I am absolutely bias in regard to the incredible functionality and affordable cost of our software and totally recommend that you contact us for a free trial. We include the initial subscription costs for RTO data within our RTO registration service fee (Click). We also provide the client with free use of this system for a period of six months from the date the services commenced or until the RTO achieves registration, whichever comes first. Ask one of our competitors if they are willing to provide a six month free usage period whilst you are preparing the RTO application and see what they say. The ongoing usage charges are outlined on the above page but essentially this is $100 per month for the first user and two dollars per day for each additional user. This is an awesome software platform particularly built for RTOs and when you compare the cost, I am fairly confident that you will conclude that this cost is also awesome. As an example, if you had two users on the system full-time your annual costs would be approximately $1,930.00. If you only have one user full-time, your annual costs would be $1,200.00. We don’t charge additional fees for training or support or linking the software with your website via an API, as an example.
Now, you need to do your own research, but you will find in this space of cloud-based student management services there are only about six major players of which we are one. It is not unusual to find clients paying these other systems in the order of $15,000 per year. Do your research and compare capabilities and cost and also try and get some feedback about the support capabilities. I am confident on the basis of those three benchmarks, capability, cost and support that our system is the obvious choice. Get in contact today for a free trial. I am normally fairly reserved in pushing our own products and services but, seriously, this is a no-brainer. Give us a chance to demonstrate our systems capability.
In terms of the application, you will need to provide evidence that you have access to an AVETMISS compliant student management software. Unless the provider you go with is willing to provide you a six-month grace period like we do, probably hold off on that purchase until just before you submit the application. No use paying for a student management software that you are not getting any return on.
Business Establishment
Obviously, if you are setting up a new business you will incur all of the normal costs associated with establishing a new business entity and getting in place necessary requirements in support of that. The business.gov.au website (Click) provides an excellent summary and costing template to help you plan for the start-up costs of the new business. The following points are a summary:
- Registrations, including registering for an ABN and Business name registration
- Licences and permits (such as local government approval of the delivery site)
- Domain names registration
- Intellectual Property (IP) rights protection, including Trademarks
- Vehicle registration
- Membership fees (such as industry associations)
- Solicitor fees
- Utility connections and bonds (Electricity, gas, water)
- Phone connection
- Internet connection
- Computer hardware / software
- Staff training
- Insurance
- Printing
- Stationery and office supplies
- Marketing and advertising
- Website set up
Application fees
The application fee relates to the fee that you pay to the national VET regulator when you apply and then again when they assess your application. You can access the current fees via the ASQA website (Click). The current cost for the initial application lodgement is $500.00. After they have confirmed that the application complete, you will then receive an invoice for the initial assessment fee which is $8,000.00. If your application is successful, your registration will be approved for an initial period of two years’. In addition to this, you also need to pay an annual registration charge which is based on the number of qualifications on your scope of registration. As an example, if you have between 0-4 qualifications then the annual registration fee is currently $1,130.00. Your initial annual registration fee is payable by 1 July each year and is worked out on a pro rata basis. Definitely check the national regulator’s website for the current fees. In terms of cost planning, you need to account for an application fee of $8,500.00.
Cost Scenarios
Ok, I thought it would be helpful if I provided you with a couple of cost examples based on two different scenarios. Both of these scenarios are pitched as small businesses. The following assumptions are made within the two scenarios:
- The applicant is utilising our RTO Registration service.
- The application takes five months to prepare and submit.
Conclusion
It is so important to undertake proper planning and research prior to launching into any business. Delivering training as an RTO is both a worthwhile and noble undertaking and can be financially rewarding. The application process is complex and involves many costs only to enable the application to be submitted and assessed. The time frame between submitting the application and having it assessed by the regulator can also be quite extensive sometimes as long as six months. Your strategy to apply to become an RTO should involve the necessary expenditure of funds to prepare the application and minimum expenditure on the RTO whilst you are waiting for the application to be assessed. This revenue gap can often be a very difficult thing for some people to bridge.
I hope that this article has helped you in your planning to become an RTO. Please contact us if we can be of any assistance in providing our valuable products and services.
Good training,
Joe Newbery
Published: 7th June 2019
Copyright © Newbery Consulting 2019. All rights reserved.
Important Information
Newbery Consulting provides this information on the understanding that users will exercise their own skill and care with respect to its use. Before relying on this information in any important matter, users should carefully evaluate the accuracy, completeness and relevance of the information for their purposes and should obtain appropriate professional advice relevant to their particular circumstances. The material may include views or recommendations of third parties which do not necessarily reflect the views of Newbery Consulting or indicate its commitment to a particular course of action.
Links to other publications and organisations have been inserted for convenience and do not constitute endorsement of material within those publications or any associated organisation, product or service. It is the responsibility of users to make their own decisions about the accuracy, currency and reliability of the information at those sites.
By accessing this information, the user waives and releases Newbery Consulting to the full extent permitted by law from any and all claims relating to the usage of this material. Under no circumstances, shall Newbery Consulting be liable for any incident or consequential damages resulting from the use of this material.
VET News – 5th June 2019
|
VET News – 17th May 2019
|
VET News – 3rd May 2019
|
The Amount of Training – Part Three
The Amount of Training – Part Three
Introduction
Hi there, this is our final installment on our amount of training blog series. I have to say that the feedback we have received about this blog series has been quite overwhelming. I really do appreciate the great feedback that people have sent through. The repose demonstrates to me that providers out there are searching for answers and guidance on this stuff in plain language. Anyway, I am very glad that the series has been so helpful to so many. Here we go on the final installment!
In this edition we are focusing on the final piece to the puzzle of all things amount of training which is the “rationale” for a shorter delivery timeframe or a reduced amount of training. This edition is all about the rationale, where did it come from, what is the basis for a rationale and how do we document a rationale statement in our training and assessment strategy?
What is a “rationale” and why do we need it
The illustrious ASQA fact sheet that I have referred to a few times during this series relating to the amount of training (click), makes a very specific and deliberate reference to a “rationale” that seeks to explain why a course is being delivered in a shorter timeframe than is defined in the AQF volume of learning. It’s worth including the full quote from the fact sheet so here it is:
If your RTO is considering that its training and assessment strategy should specify a shorter timeframe than that defined in the AQF volume of learning, you will need to be able to identify and explain why there is a variation. Your training and assessment strategy may include a rationale explaining how, based on the previous skills and knowledge and needs of students, a specific student cohort:
- has the characteristics to achieve the required rigor and depth of training; and
- can meet all of the competency requirements in a shorter timeframe
It’s important to note that the concept of a rationale is not something that comes from the RTO standards. In fact, the word “rationale” does not even appear in the standards. My friend Google tells me that the definition of rationale is a set of reasons or a logical basis for a course of action or belief. So, the regulator has introduced their own adjunct to the standards via a fact sheet which is a non-legislative instrument that has zero legal standing. A fact sheet is like a guide. It is intended to help us interpret the requirements of the standards. The issue I have in regard to the amount of training fact sheet, it is being treated like a legislative instrument and is influencing how auditors interpret compliance with the standards. In fact, auditors are going beyond the requirements of the fact sheet and that is where I have a major issue.
I see RTOs being made non-compliant by inexperienced auditors just because there is no rationale statement in their training and assessment strategy. I am not talking about courses which have a short amount of training either. I am talking about courses which are well designed and are being delivered in an absolutely generous amount of training. All of a sudden, the need for a rationale statement has become a mandatory requirement in the training and assessment strategy regardless of the amount of training being delivered in the course. According to the fact sheet, a rationale may be included required where the training is being delivered in a short amount of time or a reduced amount of training.
This is reinforced within the self-assessment for initial registration which asks the applicant for: a rationale is documented where the amount of training is to be provided to a student is of a short duration.
and
Later in the same document the evidence required to support the application requires: rationale for any training product that will be delivered in a duration shorter than that recommended for the AQF level.
So, questions:
Q: Is it mandatory to include a rationale statement in your TAS?
A: No it is not; however, because ASQA have such poor auditor moderation and a lack of control over its auditors, there are many that will make you non-compliant even if you have a suitable allocation of training and course duration.
Q: Do I recommend you include a rationale statement as default?
A: Unfortunately yes. In order to protect yourself from the thick grey area of ASQA auditor subjectivity, I do recommend that you include a rational statement as a standard inclusion. Sometimes you may provide a rational to explain why a course has a longer duration than normal or to simply explain the rationale around the course design structure. If not to explain a short duration delivery, use it for good in other ways.
The basis for the rationale
To identify the basis for providing a rationale for a reduced amount of training, we need to look at Clause 1.2 closely. Here is Clause 1.2 in its current form:
1.2. For the purposes of Clause 1.1, the RTO determines the amount of training they provide to each student with regard to:
a) the existing skills, knowledge and the experience of the student;
b) the mode of delivery; and
c) where a full qualification is not being delivered, the number of units and/or modules being delivered as a proportion of the full qualification.
Whoever came up with this brilliant inclusion within the standards is obviously of and from the foundations of vocational education training. The clause reflects the essence of competency-based training and assessment. If I had the chance to rewrite it, I would make a small change to include a requirement for a rationale and also make it applicable to “learners” plural, such as:
For the purposes of Clause 1.1, the RTO determines and provides a rationale for the amount of training they provide to learners with regard to,,,
The clause acknowledges that students entering the course who may already hold some existing knowledge and skills are likely to be capable of completing the course in a lesser amount of time. It acknowledges that VET courses can be designed and delivered in different ways that can have a fundamental influence on the amount of time required to deliver a course. The reference to the mode of delivery in the clause is probably one of the most misunderstood aspects of the clause and we will give this a lot of focus later on. The clause also acknowledges that some students may enter a course and already hold some units of competency (credit transfer) or can be recognised for some units of competency (RPL) before they commence training therefore reducing the amount of time required to achieve the overall qualification. I do think the sub-clauses are robust enough to give the RTO every opportunity to provide a rationale based on their training analysis and that is essentially the focus of this post.
Let’s look at each of these sub-clauses in detail and identify the different reasons within each that can lead to a reduction in the amount of training and provides examples:
1.2 a) the existing skills, knowledge and the experience of the student
This first clause is the most common considered by both providers and regulatory auditors. Even the regulators fact sheet focuses on this rationale the most. It is fairly obvious through the wording of the clause what it is about and how it might be applied. What I find with clients, is that they often only consider this a valid option where the student might have completed a lower level and related course. This type of circumstances is obvious, and this would certainly give you strong justification for a reduced amount of training. As an example, if a cohort of students were entering the Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery after having completed the Certificate III in Commercial Cookery. The students would obviously have quite significant pre-existing knowledge notwithstanding the potential 20 odd units of competency that they can receive credit transfer. Of course, the credit transfer aspect is relevant under a different clause but clearly, if the student is already competent in participating in environmentally sustainable work practices (as an example) then they are likely to have some pre-existing knowledge and skills going into a unit like Implement and monitor environmentally sustainable work practices. A comparison of the knowledge crossover between these two units of competency gives you a sense of the student’s pre-existing knowledge and skills.
We need to consider other circumstances where a student may have acquired pre-existing knowledge or skills prior to entering a course. As an example, if we are delivering a course in working in confined space. Our target student is an existing workers referred by their employer for training in confined space. The target student will have completed their workplace induction and orientation training and is already applying safe work practices in the workplace. This includes using PPE, identifying and reporting hazards, completing safe work method statements, contributing to work health and safety participative arrangements, et cetera. Those familiar with the confined space unit will know that many of these knowledge and skills are applicable to that unit of competency. So, by the consequences of the target student being an existing worker and having completed their workplace orientation and induction training, it is logical that these learning requirements in the course can receive a reduced amount of training. The students workplace experience has provided them with pre-existing knowledge or skills.
Many of us develop competency through workplace experience. As an example, I am quite capable of publishing a basic website and managing an online marketing campaign. I have never received training in this, but have undertaken my own research, asked lots of questions and learn from the experience of others in the workplace. Likewise, a person that has been working in disability care for the past three years with no prior formal training would clearly have quite significant experience coming into a Certificate IV in Disability. We find disability care providers who have many employees who do not hold qualifications and are seeking to enrol their employees with an RTO to receive both recognition and training. This is a great example of where these students will have strong prior skills and some basic knowledge but will generally not hold the underpinning theoretical knowledge required to achieve the qualification. It makes sense that a course designed to support this cohort would recognise these pre-existing skills and provide a pathway to achieve the qualification in a reduced amount of training. We need to tell this story as part of our rationale for the amount of training.
In considering these different situations where the student holds some pre-existing knowledge and skills, we need to acknowledge how this will impact on the training and assessment strategy. I advocate the following approach:
- Cohort Focused. Develop the training and assessment strategies specifically for the individual cohort. You want to avoid training and assessment strategies which are generic and could apply to any student. The training and assessment strategy needs to reflects the individual course requirements for the particular student cohort based on your analysis of the target student.
- Target student description. Include a detailed description of the target student including information about their prior work experience, education level, current employment status, assumed prior knowledge and skills, availability, et cetera. This is really important because, if we include commentary in the rationale for the amount of training about the student’s pre-existing knowledge and we don’t back this up with details in the target student description then the auditor is likely not to accept your rationale.
- Entry requirements. You are allowed to set your own local entry requirements according to your course design. These are in addition to any entry requirements that may be set by the training package. If your course design and amount of training has taken into account the target student is an existing worker in the banking sector (as an example) with a minimum of three years experience, then it makes sense to identify this as an entry requirement. If your rationale relies on a certain level of prior knowledge and skill then I advise you to identify this as an entry requirement. I was doing some work with the client a couple of months ago in regard to the certificate III in carpentry. The amount of training was a bit low and we were trying to develop a rationale in support of this. The client identified that over 95% of students would typically complete seven units of competency from the qualification via the VET in Schools program. It made sense to identify this as an entry requirement as we can then reliably account for this credit transfer therefore reducing the overall qualification and the required amount of training.
A really key point to take away here is that, it is really important that all of these things are in alignment. Your statement of rationale should not contradict the entry requirements or the description of the target student. It is also important to ensure this information is aligning with marketing material. Marketing material must be accurate and the key point of comparison to determine this is the training and assessment strategy.
1.2 b) the mode of delivery
As outlined earlier, identifying a rationale in regard to the mode of delivery is often challenging. Part of the challenge with this clause is the terminology they use. The words “mode of delivery” can mean many things and, many of us would simply default to things like classroom delivery, online delivery, workplace delivery, etc. It absolutely relates to these but, I interpret the mode of delivery in this context to have a broader application in terms of how the course is delivered and particularly how the course is designed. Having grown up in Defence as a training designer, I have long experience in developing courses using either a clustered or holistic design approach. Most of you would be familiar with clustering. Holistic course design; however, is less common and is where the entire course is like one big cluster and we deliver the training from start to finish in a logical learning sequence without any overlap. The student achieves the competencies at the end of the course once they have completed all of the assessment tasks. Unit clustering and holistic delivery are by far the most efficient and genuine course design methodologies and is often favored by enterprises. You can imagine how these types of course design can generate efficiency in the delivery and have a significant effect on reducing the required amount of training.
We also should consider the efficiencies that can be created through other strategies such as the trainer and student ratio. It totally makes sense that if you are delivering a course with a trainer / student ratio of 1:12, this will be entirely more efficient and effective from a learning perspective than a trainer / student ratio of 1:20. It is not uncommon for some of our clients to be delivering skills training with a trainer / student ratio of 1:8. You need to look at your course to identify how the mode of delivery is making the delivery of your course efficient.
Sometimes it is simply the case that there is no particular mode of delivery factors to claim. As an example, the course is delivered unit by unit via classroom training only with a trainer / student ratio of 1:20.
When considering the mode of delivery, I consider the following key factors:
- Blended modes of delivery. Sometimes an RTO will be using a “blended” mode of delivery. This may involve (as an example) the delivery of training in a classroom on a part-time basis combined with access to online learning activities and on-the-job training. There is certainly a case to be made with this type of multi-mode course delivery that it is efficient. The student has the benefit of engaging with a trainer to receive learning from experience person. They reinforce this learning outside of classroom time by completing online learning activities and then add meaning to the learning via application on-the-job. This is a very well-rounded learning pathway and often leads to deeper learning more quickly.
- Unit delivery structure. This question refers to considerations such as:
- The units are delivered individually and lockstep (one after the other). This is both the most common way that contemporary competency-based training and assessment is delivered and is also by far the most inefficient. There are virtually no time savings in an individual unit lockstep model. It is the most common because it aligns better with funding arrangements, commercial resources are supplied predominantly in a single unit format and unfortunately the sector has basically lost the skills required to design any other training model. I know that sounds harsh but seriously, it’s true. Where have all the competent training designers gone?
- The units are delivered individually and parallel. This is where each unit of competency has its own learning and assessment without any reliance on other units and multiple units of competency are delivered in the course program at the same time. This is more common when we have a full-time course and throughout the week, students will engage in different learning activities and assessment events from different units of competency. This type of model sometimes does generate efficiency particularly where there is common knowledge that exist in multiple units of competency and so learning activities can have a benefit across different units of competency. This is slightly more efficient than lockstep.
- Units delivered in clusters. Clustered unit delivery is very efficient. By combining two or three units together and removing the overlapping knowledge and skills within those units and delivering learning and assessment events which integrate all of the unit requirements, we get the result of a very efficient learning and assessment pathway. There are many different types of clustering models. I have a preference for work activity clustering where we design the learning and assessment around workplace tasks or routines that involve multiple units of competency. Analysis of the units of competency in the cluster to identify the overlapping skills and knowledge can give you a sense of the type of saving you are making. The efficiency for clustering is most evident when you consider assessment. If I have three units of competency and on average, we have four assessment tasks per unit (12 assessment tasks) which need to be individually scheduled and conducted, compared with those three units integrated into a clustered assessment package with maybe 5 assessment tasks. That is a potential reduction of more than 50% in the assessment load and the same potential exists for the clustering of learning with the removal of any overlapping or duplicate learning content.
- The learning is clustered, but the assessment is not. Obviously, the clustering is the same as above, except in this case we are getting an efficiency benefit from the clustered learning but not from the assessment. This is a good strategy in terms of the amount of training because, as we discussed in the first edition of this series, we don’t particularly get any benefit in our amount of “training” from time spent doing assessment. We get the most benefit in terms of providing a rationale if the efficiency is weighted toward the learning rather than the assessment.
- Knowledge clustering. Knowledge clustering is where you front load a lot of the common knowledge that relates to most units of competency into the early modules of the course. By delivering this common knowledge early we then get the benefit from this delivery as the course progresses reducing the need to go over this knowledge again and again. There are some classic courses where this works really well such as certificate IV in building and construction or the certificate IV in real estate. These types of courses where most of the units of competency share similar knowledge are perfect for knowledge clustering to generate an efficiency in the delivery.
- The units are delivered individually and lockstep (one after the other). This is both the most common way that contemporary competency-based training and assessment is delivered and is also by far the most inefficient. There are virtually no time savings in an individual unit lockstep model. It is the most common because it aligns better with funding arrangements, commercial resources are supplied predominantly in a single unit format and unfortunately the sector has basically lost the skills required to design any other training model. I know that sounds harsh but seriously, it’s true. Where have all the competent training designers gone?
1.2 c) where a full qualification is not being delivered, the number of units and/or modules being delivered as a proportion of the full qualification
This last sub-clause in clause 1.2 is fairly straightforward to apply and interpret. If your student cohort is typically entering the course with verifiable current competency or there is the basis for recognition of prior learning, then potentially, the student may receive recognition for these units of competency prior to a learning and assessment pathway commencing. This would obviously have the effect of reducing the amount of training to achieve the qualification given that less units are required to be delivered. Some examples where this may occur, are where students may complete lower level qualifications before entering the higher qualification; therefore, receiving some credit transfer. Students may complete units of competency during a per-apprenticeship program and therefore receive those units as a credit transfer prior to commencing.
Occasionally, we have assisted clients in developing a cohort approach to RPL where the target learners works within an enterprise and we can collect both individual and collective evidence in support of a recognition of prior learning process. Once this is completed prior to the course commencing, this then reduces the number of units required. There are many types of situations where this last clause does contribute to reducing the amount of training. Every now and then, I do come across a client who identifies that learners are entering the course with some credit transfer, but this is not reflected in the strategy at all. This is why it is important to develop a training and assessment strategy focused on particular cohort or delivery model.
How to document your rationale
Documenting the rationale is sometimes the part in all this that people have the most issues with. It is common for clients to understand the rationale for a reduced amount of training but find it difficult to explain in words. Luckily, words spew out of my head easily! 🙂 I do recommend that you use the sub-clauses of clause 1.2 to provide you a framework to describe your rationale for a reduced amount of training. It makes total sense to me that we use the standard itself to explain this compliance related content to auditors. The best way for me to explain how to document your rationale is to provide a couple of examples. As I explained above, I would do this by providing details of a target learner, entry requirement and the rationale for the amount of training.
I have prepared the following examples:
Example 1: XYZ Safety Training, 1 Day Only, RIIWHS202D Enter and Work in Confined Spaces
Target Learner
The target learner for this course is an existing worker in local industry. The target learner will have completed the enterprise and on-site induction training for their current workplace which provides the learner with many pre-existing knowledge and skills relating to the use of PPE, safe work methods application, hazard identification and reporting and procedures relating to isolation lockout and tagging. In addition to this, the target learner is expected to hold competency in their day-to-day work. The target learner has been nominated by the enterprise to complete this training for a future work requirement and is being released for the purposes of completing the course.
Where an applicant for this course is not an existing worker or has not completed relevant site and workplace induction training, these applicants will be offered an alternative program with a longer duration of training.
Local Entry Requirements
The person entering this course must:
- be an existing worker
- hold competency to perform their day to day work
- have completed enterprise and on-site WHS induction training
These entry requirements must be verified during the enrolment process. Where an applicant does not meet the entry requirements these applicants will be offered an alternative program with a longer duration of training.
Rational for the Amount of Training
1.2 a) the existing skills, knowledge and the experience of the learner
The target learner has completed enterprise and on-site induction training which provides the learner with many pre-existing knowledge and skills. Based on the target learners current work experience, they are expected to hold pre-existing knowledge and skills in the following knowledge and performance requirements identified in the unit of competency:
- interpreting and applying safe work method statements
- apply tagging and lock out
- selecting, wearing and caring for personal protective equipment
- applying safe materials handling methods
- remove tagging and lock out
- complying with site and equipment safety requirements
- complying with site isolation and site control responsibilities and authorities
- locations of safety data sheets (SDS) information and application
1.2 b) the mode of delivery
This training is delivered face-to-face in both a classroom and simulated workplace setting. The majority of the allocated time on this course is spent performing skills training activities and undertaking practical assessment. To enable an efficient course delivery, XYZ Safety Training will allocate a trainer / student ratio of 1:5 for all practical training and assessment activities. This approach to small-group training enables better engagement with the trainer in regard to skills demonstrations and the provision of feedback on student performance. It also enables the practical assessment to be completed in a shorter timeframe whilst not sacrificing the level of supervision and the quality of training and assessment.
1.2 c) where a full qualification is not being delivered, the number of units being delivered as a proportion of the full qualification
N/A
Example 2: XYZ CBD Training, 12 months, BSB51918 – Diploma of Leadership and Management
Target Learner
Learners entering this course is an existing worker preferably in a junior supervisory role with a minimum of three years’ work experience. Learners will have the support of their workplace supervisor or employer to participate in the training. It is considered that the majority of the learner’s attending this course will be drawn from the CBD of Sydney or within a 5 km radius of the CBD. The majority of learners will be office workers currently working in a business context either from the public or private sector.
Learners will have a minimum education level of a Higher School Certificate (or equivalent) and be aged 21 years or over. Learners will have completed a language literacy and numeracy assessment during the enrolment process and demonstrate their learning capacity to undertake course.
Learners are typically undertaking this course in order to develop their skills and knowledge in leadership and management and to improve their employment opportunities.
Due to the learner’s current work status, learners are expected to have prior knowledge and skills relating to their current work and the workplace and enterprise requirements. This is expected to create some efficiency in the acquisition of new knowledge and skills.
Local Entry Requirements
The person entering this course must meet the following local entry requirements to ensure applicants are able to fully engage in the course and have the required learning capacity to meeting the course requirements. Learners must:
- be aged 21 years or over
- be an existing worker preferably in a junior supervisory role
- have the support of your supervisor or employer
- hold a minimum of a Higher School Certificate (or equivalent)
- able to commit to the course duration and time commitment
These entry requirements will be confirmed through information collected on the enrolment form including confirmation from your workplace supervisor or employer.
Rational for the Amount of Training
1.2 a) the existing skills, knowledge and the experience of the learner
The target learner for this course is described as an individual who is an existing worker preferably in a junior supervisory role with a minimum of three years’ work experience. The entry requirements require that learners have the support of their workplace supervisor or employer to participate in the training. It is considered that the majority of the learner’s attending this course will be drawn from the CBD of Sydney or within a 5 km radius of the CBD. The majority of learners will be office workers currently working in a business context either from the public or private sector.
These entry requirements have been set deliberately in order to ensure that learners entering this course have already developed occupational skills of working in a business and in an organisational / enterprise context.
It is expected that because of this prior work experience and current employment status, the target learner for this course will hold the following capabilities:
- Contributing to Work Health and Safety. Have a general understanding of workplace health and safety requirements including personal responsibility for identifying and reporting workplace hazards and contributing to work health and safety participatory arrangements. It is likely that many learners will have completed their workplace work health and safety induction training and may have participated in mandatory annual refresher training. Learners are expected to already know of the WHS Act, hazard identification and hazard controls.
- Maintaining workplace relationships. Have exposure working with others to maintain effective workplace relationships. This will include working with people of different cultural backgrounds. Based on their enrolment and support of their current workplace supervisor or employer, it can be assumed that the learner is an effective communicator and contributes to maintaining a positive workplace environment. The learner is expected to have a basic knowledge of workplace requirements relating to equity and non-discriminatory behaviour and workplace policies applicable to their current workplace relating to resolving differences between workers.
- Working as part of a team. The learner is identified as a person who is preferably working in a supervisory role. This means that the target learner works with other people either in a team or in a collaborative role. The learner is likely to have capabilities in working with others in a team and drawing on the strengths of individuals to achieve outcomes for the business. The learner is likely to have participated in strategies that support team cohesion and performance.
- Market awareness. The learner may come to the course from either the private or public sector. Regardless of this background, the learner will have experience working in an organisation which is focused on goals relating to the provision of service and/or product production and sales. In that context, the target learner is expected to have a general knowledge of the market forces that influence the success of their work and the importance of understanding the market in order to focus the work effort to maximise results.
- Operational awareness. The learner will have experience working as part of a public or private sector operation. It is likely that this is underpinned by an overarching operational plan in which the learner plays a part in the implementation and assisting to meet operational goals. The learner is likely to have awareness of the key inputs to an operational plan such as organisation, budgeting, meeting operational objectives and the necessity of delivering operational outcomes in accordance with any relevant legislative or regulatory requirements. These concepts are fundamental and likely to be well understood by the learner who has at a minimum three years’ work experience and is likely working in a supervisory role.
- Participating in meetings. It is expected that with the learner’s work experience, the learner would have participated in various meetings of different formalities. It is also likely that the learner has led some meetings at the team or section level. Whilst these meetings may have been relatively informal, they would have a basic understanding of meeting agenda. It is expected that the learner will have a basic knowledge in meeting terminology, structure, responsibilities and the different modalities in which meetings can be conducted.
- Contributing to continuous improvement. It is expected that the learner is familiar with the concept of continuous improvement and may have had exposure to continuous improvement systems of various complexity. It is almost certain that the learner will have contributed to continuous improvement in their current workplace giving their endorsement to attend the training. It is likely that the learner will have a basic understanding of systems used in support of continuous improvement and how continuous improvement benefits other business activities and systems.
Overall, it is considered that with the learner’s current work experience, the learner enters the course with quite significant prior knowledge and skills that enable them to commence the course ready to engage in the learning content with confidence. This should not be overstated and simply recognises that the established entry requirements have set the standard for the learner to commence the course at right entry level and that some of their verified experience and current employment will put them in a good position to engage in the course with efficiency. This is expected to have the effect of reducing the overall required amount of training. As an example, accepting that the learner would have participated in workplace meetings of various formalities, it creates the foundation for the learner to engage in the unit of competency relating to managing meetings with the degree of current insight and prior understanding and experience.
1.2 b) the mode of delivery
The mode of delivery for this course is identified as: Blended, combining classroom sessions and self-paced study. Not recognised in this mode of delivery statement is the learner’s current work status as an existing worker who is continuing to work parallel to the conduct of the course on a part-time basis. This combination of study modes and learner workplace participation creates the environment where knowledge and skills are acquired in the classroom through both theoretical learning and practical activities such as role-plays and meetings. This classroom learning is supported by self-paced study allowing the learner to prepare for future classroom activities and complete theoretical tasks which deepen the learner’s understanding about the course content.
Lastly and of most significance, is the learners current and ongoing workplace participation. The entry requirements have assured that the learner is an existing worker with a minimum of three years’ work experience and preferably currently working in a supervisory or junior supervisory role. This level of workplace engagement allows the learner to directly apply the acquired knowledge and skills from the course directly into the workplace therefore having the effect of deepening this aquired knowledge and skills and allowing the learner to apply meaning to how this relates to their current work environment.
Whilst there is no formal aspect of this course which directly involves the workplace, it is the simple effect of ensuring that the learner is an existing worker that adds a subtle and third dimension to the learning modality. This combination of modes of delivery is considered to have a positive effect on the efficiency of the training delivery and will have the effect on reducing the overall required amount of training through its efficiency.
It also should be noted that the learner instructor ratio for this course is set to a maximum of 1:10 therefore providing a high supervision ratio creating the opportunity for greater involvement and participation by learners with the trainer. This means that the opportunity for trainer influence over the learner is greater than if the course at being delivered with a high learner instructor ratio. This is also identified as having the effect of creating an efficient course mode of delivery.
1.2 c) where a full qualification is not being delivered, the number of units being delivered as a proportion of the full qualification
Whilst there is potential that some learners may present with valid recognition claims such as recognition of prior learning and opportunities for credit transfer, this has not been factored into the overall learning and assessment pathway and the nominated volume of learning.
Learners who are awarded recognition of prior learning or credit transfer will complete the course in a reduced amount of training due to the reduced number of units required to be completed in a learning and assessment pathway.
Conclusion
During this series of posts over the last eight months we have covered a lot of ground. In The Amount of Training – Part One, we concentrated on getting to understand the fundamentals of concepts relating to volume of learning and the amount of training. We gave particular focus to understanding the unpublished rules of the regulator in determining the validity of non-supervised training that providers claim such as self-paced learning. The factors to consider in relation to non-supervised training were also discussed. We also emphasise the need to ensure that whatever you document within the training and assessment strategy, that it reflects the actual delivery which is occurring. No matter the temptation, always ensure that your training and assessment strategy speaks the truth.
In The Amount of Training – Part Two, we concentrated on how to describe your volume of learning. The emphasis of this post was to highlight the need to separate the description of your training activities from your assessment activities. It is important to ensure that we accurately describe both training and assessment separately in order to identify our volume of learning. We also discussed the importance of the course program. The course program is critical to showing how the planned learning and assessment activities presented as the amount of training are sequenced and structured over the course duration. It is important that not only supervised activities but also non-supervised activities are recognised within your course program.
Finally, in this post, The Amount of Training – Part Three, we have concentrated on presenting the rationale for the amount of training. Understanding the basis for the rationale and its relationship to clause 1.2 is important to identifying the opportunity to describe efficiencies in your course delivery. We also discussed and provided examples of how to present this information in a training and assessment strategy. A key point to take away from this final post is the need to ensure internal consistency in your description of the target learner, the entry requirements and your rationale for the amount of training.
It has been my absolute pleasure to prepare and provide this series of posts to the sector. I regularly refer clients to this content as a way of reinforcing the information that I communicate either on-site or over the phone. My overarching purpose of providing this guidance is to help RTOs to present compliant and logical structure in their training and assessment strategies and also to ensure that learners are getting access to sufficient training. Above all else, if you apply the concepts presented in these posts, my hope is that you will lift your arrangements to a level of compliance that is beyond the vagrancy of auditor subjectivity.
Keep an eye out for future post. I am intending to allocate time to the development of a new series of posts focusing on assessment strategies and assessment development. Watch this space.
Good training,
Joe Newbery
Published: 2nd May 2019
Copyright © Newbery Consulting 2019. All rights reserved.
Important Information
Newbery Consulting provides this information on the understanding that users will exercise their own skill and care with respect to its use. Before relying on this information in any important matter, users should carefully evaluate the accuracy, completeness and relevance of the information for their purposes and should obtain appropriate professional advice relevant to their particular circumstances. The material may include views or recommendations of third parties which do not necessarily reflect the views of Newbery Consulting or indicate its commitment to a particular course of action.
Links to other publications and organisations have been inserted for convenience and do not constitute endorsement of material within those publications or any associated organisation, product or service. It is the responsibility of users to make their own decisions about the accuracy, currency and reliability of the information at those sites.
By accessing this information, the user waives and releases Newbery Consulting to the full extent permitted by law from any and all claims relating to the usage of this material. Under no circumstances, shall Newbery Consulting be liable for any incident or consequential damages resulting from the use of this material.
VET News – 28th March 2019
|
The Amount of Training – Part Two
The Amount of Training – Part Two
Introduction
Back in September last year, I posted – The Amount of Training – Part One. If you haven’t read that, then it is worthwhile reading part one before you dive into this article. This article is going to focus on the important factors that relate to how to describe your volume of learning in your training and assessment strategy. Also in September, I posted an article laying out the requirements for the training and assessment strategies and provided a template which we have designed and use in the course of our work. This training and assessment strategy includes an excellent section that relates to this article in terms of providing you with a suitable layout and framework to describe your volume of learning. You can access this article and training and assessment strategy template at the following link (Click).
In this article I want to talk about how to describe the amount of training in the context of the volume of learning. In Part 3 of this series, I will talk about how to provide a justification (rationale) for this and what are some of the considerations when you are writing up a rationale in a training and assessment strategy. Here we go.
Describing your volume of learning
An important point that we established in part one is that the standards for RTO’s do not make reference to the volume of learning. The standards only refer to the amount of training. But the amount of training is a sub component of the volume of learning and we need to recognise this. We also established that assessment is not training. It’s always interesting when a client identifies that the learner is attending class one day per week over a 40 week program and based on a seven hour day that is 280 hours towards their amount of training. Is it, or is there any assessment happening during that time? Is there time scheduled in that program for learners to complete written knowledge assessment or participate in role-play assessment activities? The answer to this is usually yes and this differentiation between training and assessment in the time allocated was simply not considered.
Sometimes I go through an entire program with the client to identify how much time is allocated for assessment and it is usually quite surprising. On average this is usually about 1/3 of the time. So, where we had allocated 280 hours for the amount of training, we are now only allocating 186 hours with 94 hours allocated for assessment, as an example. This simple reality is really the basis for determining the overall volume of learning. We need to separate all of the activities into time allocated for training and time allocated for assessment. The best way to describe this is to provide you a little case study on which we can build a framework that describes the volume of learning. This is actually based on an audit I did just last week and when I wrote up my audit report I actually thought to myself that this is a classic example that we could use to train clients.
Case study: Client X
Client X in Brisbane is delivering the CPC10111 – Certificate I in Construction as a VET in Schools Program. The information provided in the training and assessment strategy was confusing and contradictory. The strategy identified different time allocations in different parts of the document. In one section, they were referring to the nominal hours and in other sections they were making reference to time allocated for self-paced study and work placement but these were not reflected in the overall allocated amount of training. None of these hours either calculate correctly or can be verified. I should just say at this point that, this is quite typical.
It’s at this point in the audit, that I usually put the strategy aside and work with the client to unpack exactly how the course is being delivered so that we can establish the actual time allocation. I really make a big point in the first edition of this series about the need to be real. Including time for activities such as 15 hours of “self-paced learning” per week that has not been developed or can be verified is a waste of time and counterproductive from a compliance perspective. I call this “magical time”. It dose not really exist but we included it to make the volume of learning look better. No!
Sorry, back to the case study,,,
Through discussion with client X, we established that the learner will typically complete the course in one year consisting of attending the training program one day per week. Over a typical academic year, this equates to 40 days. So, we know that the learner will be attending training and assessment 8 hours per day on average for 40 days resulting in a total attendance time of 320 hours. This time can generally be divided into time spent doing training and time spent doing assessment. The training includes both theoretical classroom-based training and practical training in a workshop. Equally, the assessment includes both written knowledge assessment and practical observation assessment in the workshop. Through conducting an analysis of this time over the course duration we determined that the course is actually being delivered something like this:
8 hours per day x 40 days = 320 hours, consisting of:
- 2 hours per day x 32 days in class training = 64 hours
- 6 hours per day x 30 days skills training in workshop = 180 hours
- Total amount of training so far 244 hours
- 2 hours per day x 8 days in class knowledge assessment – 16 hours
- 6 hours per day x 10 days skills assessment in workshop – 60 hours
- Total amount of assessment so far 76 hours
Once we had established a model for the face-to-face time, we now need to verify the claimed self-paced study. Client X confirmed that this is not formally conducted. There are activities within the learning material that are suitable for this purpose and other activities are allocated by trainers as homework. The current allocated 80 hours would require learners to be completing approximately two hours of self-paced study per week fully dedicated to this particular subject. Of course, the learners may also have homework allocated from other subjects, so the organisation needs to determine how much time is viable to allocate to learners as a compulsory homework. In order for this time to be verifiable, it would need to be compulsory and developed into a formal self-paced learner guide which the learner completes and submits for feedback from the trainer. The organisation would need to retain this completed self-paced learning as evidence of the learner’s participation in training. Assuming that the organisation can establish this arrangement and implements this self-paced learning we have an additional 80 hours that can be allocated to training. Client X felt that this was totally reasonable and they felt confident in developing these arrangements. Great!
Client X had also allocated in its training and assessment strategy, 80 hours allocated for work placement which is based on the classic two weeks work experience completed in Year 11. This time is currently not compulsory but is encouraged. It is understood that the majority (as much as 90%) of learners currently complete the work placement. There is no current structure to this work placement as structured workplace learning. Structured workplace learning is where the organisation allocates specific tasks based on the units of competency to the learner to complete during their work placement in order to deepen their understanding of how these skills are applied in the workplace and their ability to perform tasks (see Part One). Whilst not supervised by the trainer, the learner is supervised by their workplace supervisor. If the learner can maintain a basic workplace training record of the completed task, then this also contributes to the amount of training.
Client X identified that that it is difficult for a small number of students to complete this work placement and this is why the activity has not previously been compulsory. I recommended Client X make the activity compulsory and establish a flexibility arrangement for those learners where it is just not possible. I often give this advice in audits. We should always plan on the majority and not the minority. You need to see the student cohort as one with identifiable characteristics and plan your training around that. Yes there will be exceptions and you can deal with these as they arise. So, Client X resolved that it would make the work placement a compulsory activity and develop a suitable workplace training record that allocated relevant tasks drawn from the unit of competency where the learner will complete these during work placement and keep a record of this. Obviously this will be noted by the workplace supervisor and reviewed by the trainer to monitor the learner’s progress. Great, that is an additional 80 hours.
So, assuming that Client X can establish appropriate structure around their self-paced learning and structured workplace learning, the final description of the total volume of learning would look something like this:
Example: Client X
During this course, learners will complete one day per week attending structured training and assessment over the school year. This includes attending the RTO one day per week for 8 hours per day over 40 weeks. The time spent at the RTO is allocated to classroom based training and skills training in the workshop. Time is also allocated for both written knowledge assessment and practical skills assessment.
The learner will also complete self-paced learning each week of approximately two hours of homework and is required to complete a two-week work placement. Both self-paced learning and work placement are a compulsory component of the course. These require the completion of mandatory learning activities both under the learner’s own direction as homework and under the supervision of their workplace supervisor during work placement.
The allocated hours are as follows:
Training
- 2 hours per day x 32 days in class training = 64 hours
- 6 hours per day x 30 days skills training in workshop = 180 hours
- 2 hours per week x 40 weeks self-paced study = 80 hours
- 2 weeks x 40 hours per week of work placement = 80 hours
- Total amount of training = 404 hours
Assessment
- 2 hours per day x 8 days in class knowledge assessment = 16 hours
- 6 hours per day x 10 days skills assessment in workshop = 60 hours
- Total amount of assessment = 76 hours
Volume of Learning
- Total amount of training = 404 hours
- Total amount of assessment = 76 hours
- Total Volume of Learning = 480 hourss
The Course Program available at annex A, provides a framework for the training and assessment activities and shows how these activities are sequenced and structured over the course duration.
I just want to point out a couple of important things about the description above. It’s important to note that we have separated out the time allocated for training and the time allocated for assessment and brought these together to describe the overall volume of learning. Some of you will be wondering, why we did not get to the magic number of a minimum of 600 hours for this AQF level. The reason for this is that the above program is really squeezing out as many hours as possible from a student in year 11. It is also critical to acknowledge that the above hours are realistic hours. We didn’t attempt to fluff out the hours just to simply get to a magic number. Client X has an excellent training program with structured training and plenty of opportunity for learners to practice their skills prior to their assessment. I confirmed through the audit that the learning aligns with the requirements of units of competency so there is no doubt in my mind that the learner is getting the benefit of excellent training. I would have absolutely no problem this client going into an audit with the national regulator.
Do not believe these random stories on LinkedIn where auditors apparently make a course non-compliant because it didn’t get to some magic number. I am sure that some would disagree with me but this has simply not been our experience since the introduction of the new standards and that is because our clients develop well-structured programs with progressive skill development leading to assessment. Good training design will trump an artificial requirement for minimum hours any day of the week.
Hang-on,,, sorry, I should just clarify, this is true, except in Victoria. I do acknowledge that there are a number of cowboy auditors operating out of the Melbourne office of ASQA who basically make up their own rules and apply zero educational logic or understanding of VET to their decision making. The Melbourne office exercises no control or moderation over these bad apples and there is just no explaining or rationalising their audit decisions. VET regulation in Victoria at the moment is truly toxic. The ASQA Melbourne office is killing VET delivered by private providers in Victoria!
Sorry, just needed that little rant! 🙂 In all other States and Territories, we find that good educational logic applies within a framework that requires the RTO to accurately document the amount of training and the course structure. Thank heavens for the sensible logic of the Brisbane Office and the influence it has! Except in Victoria. 🙂
The importance of the course program
I have mentioned on various occasions in our audit guide and in my presentations at conferences, et cetera, that a consistent requirement from the national regulator in regard to training and assessment strategies is the need for the strategy to describe a learning and assessment framework. A learning and assessment framework describes the planned learning activities across all modes of delivery and the planned assessment activities. Note that I am referring to the activity level. I am not simply identifying units of competency which are scheduled to be delivered in certain days or weeks. I am suggesting that you need to break your course program down to a level of detail where you can identify each activity. Now, an activity might be an hour, a day or it could be two days or whatever. The important thing is the activity is defined within a supporting documents such as a session plan or an assessment instruction. We can say that X activity is scheduled to occur over two days on this specific week and we can go to the session plan and identify the agenda and teaching points and activities which are required to be completed over those two days. The important thing is that the activity is identifiable and assessment events are scheduled in the program to occur after the learner has had an opportunity to develop their skills. It makes sense.
If you make claims in your volume of learning about particular modes of delivery and assessment activities then these need to be described in the course program. Most course programs only describe the time that the learner is actually on-site with the RTO. So, if the learner is spending one day a week at the RTO then the course program only reflects this time allocation and activity. As we described above, this time can often be separated into different components which can include theoretical learning in the classroom, skills development in a simulated workplace, time allocated for assessment, et cetera. You need to think about these different modes of delivery rather than simply bundling them all into “classroom”. We also need to reflect in the course program the activities we have nominated as non-supervised activities such as self-paced learning and structured workplace learning, and non-supervised assessment work to name a few. If we expect the learner to complete two hours a week of self-paced learning then we should identify this in the course program by identifying the actual self-paced learning activity which is scheduled to be completed in that week.
The following table is taken from a course program that we prepared for a client a while back. It is from a Diploma of Leadership and Management and allocates the activities that are scheduled to occur each week. This is just a three-week snapshot. It should be noted that each of these activities is defined within its own supporting document. The classroom sessions are defined by a developed session plan. The self-paced training activities are defined in a developed self-paced learner guide, and so on. The program shows how the time allocated to all of these supervised and non-supervised activities is sequenced and structured over the course duration:
The key point about the course program is that, it provides justification for your allocation of time in the volume of learning. If you nominate self-paced learning and don’t reflect this in your overall learning and assessment framework or course program then it basically does not exist. The number of times I have seen an audit report from ASQA identifying this as a non-compliance would blow your mind. Check out the training and assessment strategy template that I have provided at the following link for a course program that gives you the structure to describe all of your activities (Click).
Conclusion
My objective in this article is to provide some guidance to those who are seeking to describe the volume of learning within their training and assessment strategies. The key point is that it needs to be real. Resist the urge to artificially inflate your hours to simply get to an amount of time. Make sure that you think about the different modes of delivery within both the supervised time and non-supervised time the learner is engaging in training. This also applies to assessment. Sometimes the learner will be completing theory assessment in class which is supervised and then will be preparing project submissions at home which is non-supervised. We need to take account of all of this time and to accurately describe it within our overall volume of learning. It really is important to differentiate assessment from training.
Lastly, the course program is critical to telling the story about how these activities are sequenced and structured over the course duration. Make sure that all activities are accurately displayed within your course program in their sequence including supervised and non-supervised activities. It is totally reasonable to indicate that a non-supervised self-paced learning activities should be completed by particular week. This should be in the program.
In the next and final part of this series, I will be talking about how to provide a rationale around your training particularly where your hours are lower than the benchmark volume of learning. This article will focus on clause 1.2 of the standards for RTO’s and I know will be very helpful for many.
Good training,
Joe Newbery
Published: 28th March 2019
Copyright © Newbery Consulting 2019. All rights reserved.
Important Information
Newbery Consulting provides this information on the understanding that users will exercise their own skill and care with respect to its use. Before relying on this information in any important matter, users should carefully evaluate the accuracy, completeness and relevance of the information for their purposes and should obtain appropriate professional advice relevant to their particular circumstances. The material may include views or recommendations of third parties which do not necessarily reflect the views of Newbery Consulting or indicate its commitment to a particular course of action.
Links to other publications and organisations have been inserted for convenience and do not constitute endorsement of material within those publications or any associated organisation, product or service. It is the responsibility of users to make their own decisions about the accuracy, currency and reliability of the information at those sites.
By accessing this information, the user waives and releases Newbery Consulting to the full extent permitted by law from any and all claims relating to the usage of this material. Under no circumstances, shall Newbery Consulting be liable for any incident or consequential damages resulting from the use of this material.
VET News – 14th March 2019
|
VET News – 28th February 2019
|
Change to scope applications – Dangerously easy!
Resource requirements for change to scope applications – Dangerously easy!
In December 2018, the National VET Regulator released its first general direction in two a half years. In this post, I will talk about this new general direction and I will also talk about the changes the regulator has made to the process for submitting an addition to scope application. It would seem that this process has been made a whole lot easier to complete; however, the changes have also introduced a significant statutory obligation on those making applications. So, it is easier, but you need to make sure you have your ducks in a row first. Here we go!
The general direction
Firstly, a general direction that is published on the regulator’s website is not the same as a fact sheet or a guide. A general direction is issued under the authority of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011, Part 2, Division 1, Section 28 Condition which requires an RTO to comply with any general directions given by the National VET Regulator. Complying with directions whether they be a written direction issued directly to an RTO or a general direction published on the regulator’s website is a condition of registration. Obviously, if you don’t comply with a written or general direction issued by the National VET Regulator then it is a problem. At the very least, you would be made non-compliant with clause 8.2 and 8.5 of the RTO standards and would need to rectify this. At the very worst your registration can be cancelled for breaching your conditions of registration and you could be prosecuted under Part 6, Division 1, Section 111 which relates to breach of condition of registration. I realise that all sounds fairly dramatic, but it is a fact.
So, the new general direction is titled: Resourcing requirements—for applicants seeking initial registration or change to scope of registration. Here is a link for your convenience (click). Whilst the direction relates to applicants seeking initial registration, it also relates to existing RTO’s seeking to change their scope of registration. It applies to both domestic courses and CRICOS delivery. I won’t regurgitate the entire general direction in this post as you can access it and review it for yourself.
These are the highlights:
The general direction specifies that applicants seeking to change their scope of registration are expected to have access to all required resources for each training product included in the application at the time of submitting the application. When it says “resources” it is referring to the following:
- Trainers and assessors
- Educational and support services
- Learning resources
- Facilities
- Equipment
- Assessment systems
The interesting part about this general direction is that it does provide some helpful guidance on how applicants should interpret these requirements. We have already had a number of discussions with ASQA about the interpretation of the general direction, so there are some areas where it is a little vague. Overall though, it is quite a useful document in defining the requirement and particularly helpful for those people who have basically no idea, which can include those seeking initial registration. This is a summary of the helpful guidance:
Trainers and assessors. The applicant must have sufficient trainers and assessors to deliver training and conduct assessment for the initial cohort. The document defines the initial cohort as the number of learners the provider intends to deliver when it first commences the delivery of the training product. This probably seems straightforward, but it is important to make sure that the number of trainers and assessors aligns with your forecast student numbers. As an example, if you are only within your first two years of registration, then an application for addition to scope requires you to also submit a new financial viability risk assessment with a revised business plan. If you make outrageous claims in your business plan in regard to the number of learners, you expect to train then you need to make sure you have a sufficient number of trainers and assessors to accommodate this. For an RTO that has been registered longer than two years, this evidence requirement does not apply, but you still need to make sure you have sufficient trainers for the number of learners you plan to commence with. The helpful piece of clarification in this section is that, if the trainer is not currently employed by the RTO, at a minimum the RTO must have formally offered the employment (or contract service) to the trainer and assessor and you must have evidence of acceptance. Having the CV or resume only for a potential trainer is not sufficient.
Educational and support services. Education support services have the same definition as the RTO standards. The general direction does not provide any spectacular guidance about this other than you need to have sufficient support services for your planned initial cohort. Just as an aside, I wrote a post mid last year about identifying education and support services as third-party arrangements (click). It is interesting that the fact sheet relating to third party arrangements has been taken down from the regulator’s website some time ago now and has not been replaced.
Learning resources. The applicant must have in their possession all learning resources for all units of competency identified in its training and assessment strategy. The general direction provides a clarification that having a quote to purchase or an invoice for a planned payment is not sufficient and does not constitute the learning resources being in your possession. To make it real simple, if you don’t have all of the learning resources for the course you want to deliver then don’t apply for it. By learning resources, we mean things like PowerPoint presentations, learning content, session plans, handouts, learner guides, self-paced learning activities, et cetera.
Facilities. Of all of the guidance in this general direction, the guidance provided in regard to facilities is the most significant. The general direction basically says that if you are applying for a new training product then you need to have suitable facilities that align with the requirements of the training product. Make sense. It then goes on to talk about what that evidence might look like and includes things like evidence of a purchased premises, a current lease, a written agreement to rent a site pending registration and plans to hire premises on an as required basis. I recently put this to the test in regard to a CRICOS registration where I spoke with ASQA about how these requirements will apply to a CRICOS application. They advised over the phone that not all of these options would be suitable for a CRICOS application (even though the general direction says otherwise). I concluded that for a CRICOS application the client would really need to have a purchased premises or a current lease. If you are a domestic RTO and just submitting an addition to scope application, then the other options would certainly be suitable.
Okay, this is where it gets really interesting because, for the first time since the beginning of domestic VET regulation, we now have a requirement specified in regard to the adequacy of the facilities used by the RTO. Of course, CRICOS RTOs have always had this but there has never been anything that made it a statutory requirement for a domestic provider. Some might say that this is governed under local government legislation and that is true, but it has always been strange to me that there was nothing in the standards that ever specified the standard of facilities. I remember running a site audit back in the day for VETAB and the RTO’s premises was absolutely disgusting and by the time morning tea came around all of the audit team was scratching due to the lice infestation, so I stopped the audit. Fun days! Anyway, the general direction specifies that facilities must be large enough to accommodate the initial cohort, must have sufficient amenities such as break rooms and toilets and interestingly needs to take account of other organisations who may be using the same facilities.
The other interesting part of the general direction is that the RTO’s facilities must have approval from the local government authority approval for a educational use. This is a big deal. Some might say that this has always been a requirement according to local government legislation but it’s not something that the regulator has consistently required and it has certainly not previously been specified. It has always been a requirement for CRICOS but never a specified requirement for a domestic RTO. I could seriously write an entire post on the requirements around this but essentially it means that the RTO needs to approach its local council to ensure that the building or property where training is being delivered has appropriate local government zoning consent/approval. I have not yet come across a council (on behalf of clients) who does not have a requirement around this. The general direction says “where this is a requirement of the local government authority” but in my experience, all councils have a requirement. Some councils have their own specified standard for educational premises and some rely on a 9B building certification. It’s just a matter of determining what your council requires. The thing I would say is this, the general direction makes it explicitly clear that this is a requirement. If you submit an application and have not dealt with this, then technically you are in breach of your conditions of registration. I know that sounds harsh and many will choose to ignore this and let a sleeping dog lie, but that is the requirement. It’s also interesting that for CRICOS applications, you now only need local government approval of the facility to deliver education and not necessarily a 9B certification. If your local government authority does not require 9B certification then this may make the process of finding a suitable premises all the easier.
Equipment. No surprises here, the general direction specifies that the applicant must have all of the equipment, either owned or leased, to deliver the units of competency included in the strategy. There is sometimes a tendency for an RTO to apply to put a training product on scope before they actually have a market. Of course, if you follow the requirements of this general direction then this means that you are incurring quite significant cost in equipment and resources before you can generate any revenue. I would strongly recommend that instead of RTOs putting qualifications on scope in the hope that a market will appear, that you only apply for a qualification where you are certain you can start generating revenue as soon as it is on the scope and can advertise. The requirement in the general direction is very straightforward but I do think the consequence is that RTOs should not be applying for training products unless they absolutely have a market and are ready to go.
Assessment systems. The general direction makes the obvious statement that you need to have all of your assessment tools and supporting system for all units of competency included in the training and assessment strategy. It provides a clarification that having a quote to buy these materials is not sufficient. The definition specifies that the assessment system, obviously needs to comply with the RTO standards as specifically clause 1.8. No surprises there.
Application to change scope
Another change that happened about the same time as this general direction was released, is a significant change to the evidence requirements for a change to scope application. The change is essentially this:
Unless you are applying for a TAE training product, ELICOS application or your RTO has not been registered longer than two years, then you do not need to upload any evidence for an addition to scope application.
Let me be clear, if you are not applying for TAE or ELICOS and have been an RTO longer than two years then no evidence is required for an addition to scope application. You don’t need to upload a training and assessment strategy, a staff matrix, evidence of industry consultation, et cetera. Some of you will find this really hard to believe, but it is true. The application is very clear and simply asks the question if you fall in to one of these categories and required to upload evidence Yes or No? If your answer is No, then you skip straight through to uploading a declaration and check out with your credit card. Bingo, items will be on scope in a matter of days. It has certainly made the process significantly easier, but, and this is a big but, the requirement of the general direction puts all of the statutory obligation on you. To make it absolutely clear that you understand this, the regulator has introduced a new declaration for the appointed CEO to complete and submit with the application. This requires the CEO to sign away that you have everything you need to deliver the training product which you are applying for. You can access the declaration at the following link (click).
This is where I give you a big word of caution. Yes, the regulator has made it very easy to process an application for addition to scope and to be honest, it has also made their job significantly easier. Instead of wasting audit resources on reviewing applications for addition to scope, they have put the entire onus of responsibility on you to make sure you are compliant. The consequences of not being compliant could be significant to your RTO. I personally think it is a really smart move by ASQA. It is a win / win for them and you, as long as everyone follows the rules! So, it is easier, but you really need to make sure you have everything in place and can sign off on that declaration with confidence. This does worry me a little. I have already encountered clients where I have told them about the no evidence requirement for this application and their reaction has been “You beauty, I will submit tomorrow”! My reaction is, “Noooooooooo, hold on, you can do that if you want, but here is the specified requirement and these are the consequences”.
I am concerned about RTOs who do not have access to that type of honest advice. Hence, the reason for this post. I just want everyone to know that the process for adding items to your scope is dangerously easy! There will be those who will “risk manage” this and those who are suitably cautious and take a planned and deliberate approach. I would absolutely recommend the latter.
Good training,
Joe Newbery
Published: 28th February 2019
Copyright © Newbery Consulting 2019. All rights reserved.
VET News – 25th October 2018
|
VET News – 27th September 2018
|
The Amount of Training – Part One
The Amount of Training – Part One
Introduction
Put your hand up if you are confused about what ASQA expect with regard to the “amount of training”. Ok, I thought so. You can all put your hands back down.
I find this concept of the “amount of training” to be one of the most confused requirements in the VET sector. Where did it come from? ASQA invented it in 2014. In fact, I reckon it can be credited to a certain individual in the Brisbane outpost. It was published in the 2015 RTO standards and of course features in clauses 1.1 and 1.2.
Since its introduction in 2015, it has been one of the worst handled policy implementations I have ever seen. Even ASQA initiated its own strategic review in 2017 (click), where the Chief Commissioner, Mark Patterson himself admitted that the regulation of duration in VET is complex and confusing. At the time this strategic review was released, I was stunned by the ineffectual recommendations that it made. Two years have now passed and not one of these recommendations has taken effect, including recommendation No 1 which simply required the inclusion of a clear definition of the “amount of training” to be included in the actual standards. I mean seriously, how many rocket scientists and bureaucrats does it take to come up with a sensible definition and publish it within the standards? Two years on and we can still only guess what the regulator actually means when it says “amount of training”.
Confusion reigns
Just to give you a snippet of the confusion within ASQA about this, in its own fact sheet (click) it identifies that the amount of training includes formal learning activities such as classes, lectures, tutorials, online or self-paced study and workplace learning. It excludes assessment and this correlates with what we are experiencing at client audits where auditors from the national regulator are removing time allocated for assessment when considering the amount of training. Now, compare this to its own strategic review report where it recommends that the amount of training include assessment activities. I mean, the contradiction is stunning. If they really think that assessment should be included when calculating the amount of training, why don’t they just update the fact sheet? Add to this, the huge variation in the way that different regions within ASQA are interpreting the requirement. The Brisbane office is typically soft and flexible, the Sydney office is typically hard and inflexible, and the Melbourne office is just simply inconsistent. Seriously, the Melbourne office is all over the place. VET regulation in Victoria is an absolute lottery. We actually will vary our advice to clients depending on what jurisdiction the client operates in. That is crazy and is a symptom of poor auditor moderation and inadequate national oversight over the regions and individual auditors. Anyway, you get the picture. It’s basically a mess. We have a poorly defined published regulatory requirement, a regulator who can’t even agree with itself and RTO’s who are jumping at the shadows trying to understand exactly what the regulator expects. It actually does my head in and I am a little disappointed for our sector.
So,,, in an effort to support the sector (as we do) and to provide some clarity and understanding, I have provided some considerations on how to comply with clauses 1.1 with regard to the amount of training. In the next part of this series, I will focus on clause 1.2.
I hope this helps.
The fundamentals (as at today anyway)
The first thing to note is that the standards require the RTO’s training and assessment strategies and practices to include an amount of training that is consistent with the requirements of the training package. The training packages provide no advice on the amount of training as such but does position qualifications at a particular AQF level.
These AQF levels have an allocated volume of learning indicator (click). To identify the AQF volume of learning indicator, you are best going direct to the source and identifying the allocated volume of learning for each AQF level within the AQF Levels Criteria and Qualification Type Descriptors table, AQF 2nd edition, (click). As an example, the volume of learning indicator for a diploma qualification is 1 to 2 Years (1200 to 2400 hours). I seriously have no idea why they allocate 1200 hours to 1 year. I don’t think this came out of the original AQF doctrine. Oh well, we should blame that on ASQA as well! 🙂 But seriously, why is it 1200 hours for each year? I mean, why isn’t it 750 hours per year or 500 hours per year? If anyone knows the answer to this, please email me.
Anyway, it is really important to understand that the volume of learning is not the only consideration in determining the amount of training. The volume of learning is a dimension of the complexity of the qualification. The factors which influence the required amount of training include:
– the number of units of competency that make up the qualification
– the breadth and depth of the required knowledge and skills of each unit
– how the training is being delivered (mode of delivery)
– the entry level and current experience of the target learner
The volume of learning indicator is expressed as a “typical” range such as our diploma which has a typical range of 1200 to 2400 hours. Why is it expressed as a range? Because all of the factors identified above will influence how much time and training is required. Obviously, the more complex the course, the more time required.
In its fact sheet, ASQA say that “If your RTO intends to deliver to learners who are new to the industry area and/or who do not have any workplace experience, the amount of training required that is described in the training and assessment strategy would closely match the timeframe listed with the AQF volume of learning.”
So, I generally try and get the client to identify the amount of training which is allocated across all various modes of training delivery to maximise the final amount of training. I am not advocating artificially inflating the figures just to reach the minimum volume of learning. This is important and the subject of discussion further on. My point is here, you need to think outside the box of simply focusing only on face-to-face training. How else is the learner engaging with the content? Are there opportunities to introduce new learning engagement strategies to increase the amount of training in the current course duration?
Activities that make up the AQF volume of learning include all learning and assessment activities. The important part about that statement is that the AQF volume of learning can include assessment. The way that ASQA define the amount of training (at the moment) is that it includes training only and excludes anything to do with assessment. This is important because we generally advise clients to avoid including amounts of time allocated for assessment in an overall time allocated for the amount of training. This can have a serious impact on the time because, assessment is ultimately the only way you are achieving competency and it often forms a big component of most courses.
We recommend that the following activities be included in calculating the amount of training:
Supervised training:
- face-to-face training
- onsite training in the workplace
- tutorials, workshops or field trips
- supervised e-learning such interactive video sessions or chat forums
Non-supervised training:
- structured and compulsory self-paced learning activities
- structure and monitored online learning activities
- structured and compulsory distance learning activities
- structured and compulsory workplace learning activities
We recommend that the following activities not be included in calculating the amount of training:
- optional learning support
- recommended or even prescribed reading
- watching videos
- recommended personal study or preparation
- self initiated learning activities
- work experience or attendance
What is Training?
The definition of “training” (in the context of the amount of training) is something that also needs to be considered very carefully. The fact sheet I have quoted above simply says that “training” comprises the formal learning activities you provide to a learner. These can include classes, lectures, tutorials, structured online or self-paced study, as well as structured workplace learning. So, anything where “training” is occurring.
But, ASQA has some unpublished rules about how it interprets non-supervised training and how these activities need to be conducted to justify them as training. We identify the following six factors which need to be present in order to justify time allocated for non-supervised training, these include:
- the learner completes actual work and submits these for review
- the trainer reviews the work and provides the learner feedback to monitor their progress
- the training activities are aligned to the requirements of the units of competency
- the activities are a compulsory component of the course
- the time allocated is proportionate to the activity being undertaken
- the organisation can provide evidence to verify that these activities were completed
Let’s look at these in more detail:
1. The learner completes actual work and submits these for review. One of the very unfortunate practices that has emerged in the last few years is the practice of including an allocated amount of time to training activities for which the RTO has no developed basis for. It is a very common occurrence in the audit’s that we undertake where the RTO will claim an amount of self-paced training that the learner is undertaking. This might be five hours a week over a 40-week course (200 hours). I ask to see the developed self-paced training activities that the learner is completing in this time and the RTO says “Oh, these are allocated by each individual trainer as homework” or “this is the time that the learner spends reading the learner guide”. The problem with these situations is, the regulator will simply not accept “reading” as training and unless there is a developed activity that the learner is actually completing and unless you can produce evidence of the actual structured activities, it simply is a thought bubble and is not “training”. The training conducted online, self-paced, in the workplace, et cetera needs to be identifiable as an actual activity that the learners’ complete and submit something or record something that will be reviewed by the trainer. Don’t simply make claims about an activity when there is no actual designed and developed activity which the learner is completing. Otherwise, it’s not training.
So, we advise clients to develop a self-paced learner guides which include these activities if they are claiming self-paced learning. If they are allocating time to workplace learning then we recommend that they develop a comprehensive workplace learner guide which includes a range of activities that learners’ need to complete on the job and record evidence of this. It’s important to note, that this is not assessment, this is simply training to enable the learner to develop their skills across the full range of situations that may present in the workplace.
2. The trainer reviews the work and provides the learner feedback to monitor their progress. Over the last six months, I have observed ASQA introduce new requirements for how it regulates training. It’s hard to know if this is just auditors operating off reservation or an unpublished policy that has emerged out of formal auditor moderation. In any respect, I have seen enough of the pattern across jurisdictions to now provide this as a standard recommendation to clients.
Unless the RTO can provide evidence that the completed training is subject to review by the trainer and includes feedback provided to the learner then it simply won’t be accepted as training. I mean, this probably sounds like an obvious statement, but there aren’t too many RTO’s who actually collect completed self-paced learning activities from learners, have the trainer (at $50 an hour) review these and provide feedback to the learner. Just to be clear, I am talking about training here and not assessment. The trainer/assessor will also need to review, assess the completed assessment work (at $50 an hour) on top of this.
I have had a number of instances particularly across Victoria and New South Wales where the auditor has rejected time allocated to an activity as training because there was no evidence that the trainer had reviewed the work and provided feedback to the learner. I now refer to this as a “feedback loop” and recommend clients to build this into their delivery model. This has seen some clients move these self-paced learning activities online where the learner’s work can be reviewed more efficiently and in some cases responses provided by the learner can be provided programmatically. By this, I mean marked automatically within a learning management system, particularly where the outcomes of these learning activities are objective. Other clients have incorporated the review of completed self-paced learning activities into classroom activities. So, at the beginning of the session, the trainer will ask students to produce their completed self-paced learning activities which are then subject to a classroom discussion and the trainer signing off each completed workplace learning record (so last century!).
The take-home point is, there needs to be a feedback loop where the trainer reviews the work completed by the learner as training, so the learner can benefit from the input from the trainer and the trainer can monitor the progress of the learner.
3. The training activities are aligned to the requirements of the units of competency. The training activities that you develop need to align with the requirements within the unit of competency. Again, you would think within our competency-based training and assessment model that this is a completely obvious statement, but I often see activities such as work placement or self-paced learning where the RTO cannot easily identify how the units of competency actually relate to the activity.
I recommend that clients develop their training and particularly non-supervised training to align with the units of competency that comprise the course or the unit clusters. This means, that we see clients developing workplace learner guides with tasks aligned with particular units of competency or self-paced learner guides aligned with specific units of competency. You need to be able to show the relationship to the units of competency the learner is undertaking.
The training needs to form part of the designed learning pathway for the learner to acquire the required knowledge and skills in order to achieve competency. Makes sense!
4. The activities are a compulsory component of the course. The training activities that you allocate time in your training and assessment strategy need to be compulsory. If they are not compulsory, then they do not form part of the designed learning pathway. I have observed auditors from the national regulator reject time allocated to training activities which are not compulsory. The common example of this is where an RTO may allocate an amount of time for optional learner support. Refer to and explain these activities within your training and assessment strategy by all means, but do not allocate these non-compulsory activities time in your amount of training.
5. The time allocated is proportionate to the activity being undertaken. You need to make sure that the time you allocate for certain activities is realistic. If you allocate 10 hours a week to self-paced learning, there needs to be a sufficient volume of activity that it would take the average person about 10 hours to complete. When a client allocates an amount of time for self-paced learning, structured online learning or structured workplace learning, I look to see the amount of activity which is allocated in that week or against that unit of competency.
The national regulator does the same and if there is insufficient developed activity which corresponds with the allocated time then it simply will be rejected. The strategy is made non-compliant because it does not reflect the current delivery model and the amount of training does not enable the learner to acquire the required skills and knowledge. Sound familiar?
A good way of identifying how much time is required to complete an activity is by getting feedback from current or past learners who have already completed those activities. If you are including allocated workplace activities within a workplace learner guide, then get some feedback from the supervisor or employer about the required time to complete those tasks. It’s really important that the time you allocate to activities is proportionate to the work required to be completed.
6. The organisation can provide evidence to verify that these activities were completed. Finally, you need to be able to provide evidence of these completed training activities. This might present in the form of a retained completed learner guide or a retained completed workplace logbook. If you are delivering your training online, then presenting evidence of completed training activities can be a little easier.
The concept of being able to provide evidence of completed training activities is problematic. For instance, I have seen auditors from the national regulator (Sydney) not accept time allocated for self-paced learning because the RTO could not produce evidence of completed self-paced learning work. Of course, the RTO explained that they review the work but allow the learner to keep this work for their own reference and so it is not retained by the RTO in its record system. The auditor didn’t take any notice of the client’s explanation and made the client non-compliant because of an insufficient amount of training directly related to the fact that this evidence could not be produced. I find this grossly unfair and challenge the national regulator to identify any general direction it has issued or any legislative instrument which specifies the obligation of the RTO to retain evidence of completed training. If you are going to regulate something then publish the regulatory requirement in black and white so everyone is on the same page!
So, whilst I find this last requirement very problematic, there are some ways that you can retain evidence of completed training activities. I would absolutely recommend that any learner who attends face-to-face training with the RTO is recorded on an attendance record of some description. Any work completed by the learner in the form of structured workplace learning activities should be retained in the form of a workplace logbook or perhaps using one of the cloud-based services such as my profiling. When it comes to completed self-paced learning work activities, it can be a little more difficult. Perhaps getting the teacher to maintain a consolidated record of the work they have reviewed prior to handing it back to learners or recording comments or observations in regard to the learner’s completed work within the notes section of your student management system. Obviously, the objective is to try and find an efficient way of retaining this evidence without becoming a costly administrative burden.
Keeping it real
The other important consideration when preparing information that describes the amount of training is to, keep it real! You should avoid including arbitrary numbers and calculations simply to arrive at the minimum benchmark volume of learning. I see clients doing this all the time. A good example that I reviewed recently at an audit was a certificate III course (12 units) being delivered over 12 months (40 weeks) as a traineeship. The learner was attending the RTO for face-to-face training seven hours per day, one day per week (280 hours). The learner was also completing self-paced learning activities which were developed within a self-paced learner guide and required a commitment of five hours per week which is pretty realistic (another 200 hours). Miraculously, the client had allocated 720 hours for workplace learning. Of course, the total arrived at 1200 hours! When I quizzed the client about the 720 hours, they admitted that it was simply included to align with the volume of learning because that’s what they thought ASQA wanted. No!
The RTO is much better off just describing the real time even if this number is not at the level needed to align with the volume of learning. So, if that means that the combination of face-to-face training and self-paced training, online learning amounts to only 480 hours, that’s okay. It means that we need to have a look at the course and be confident that the structured activities is giving the learner every opportunity to acquire the required skills and knowledge and importantly allowing them the opportunity to develop their skills and practice performing tasks before they are subjected to assessment. It might mean that we do look at opportunities for the learner to complete structured workplace activities as a component of their traineeship. We might undertake an analysis of the units of competency and identify the specific workplace tasks and compile these into a workplace learning record that is completed over the course duration as a record of the application of skills and tasks in the workplace directly relevant to the units of competency. After engaging with the workplace, you determine that this only adds another 300 hours bringing the total to 780 hours. That is okay! The amount of training is less than the minimum volume of learning indicator of 1200 hours, but you are confident in the course structure and now need to identify a valid rationale for why the course is below the required volume of learning. If the course is well designed and provides a valid learning and assessment pathway to achieve the units of competency then 780 hours is totally fine. Include a well-structured rationale for the reduce timeframe and bingo! The take-home point is, keep it real and do not include amounts of time which are not valid.
Keeping it realistic
The final point I want to make is about keeping it realistic. A few weeks ago, I did an audit with a client that was delivering a course over a semester (20 weeks) to existing workers, working full-time in a related field to the course. When we unpacked all of the various modes of training they had included as non-supervised training activities, it looked something like this:
- structured online learning – 7 hours per week
- self-paced learning – 10 hours per week
- project research – 5 hours per week
I went through each of these modes of delivery and the client indeed had designed non-supervised training activities behind each of these quoted amounts of time. That’s great. It occurred to me that this developed learning pathway would require the learner to complete approximately 22 hours per week of non-supervised training activity. That means they are spending about 4.4 hours, five nights per week completing non-supervised training activities. Now, the learner might be a member of that rare and freakish section of our community that can do this, but when it comes to the average Australian, no way! The allocated hours are completely unrealistic. Just think about it for a moment. You spend all day at work and get home about 5:30 PM. You go straight into domestic bliss and navigate your way through dinner. If you are lucky, you hit the books at about 7:30 PM and finish about midnight… five nights a week. Totally unrealistic! If you add kids into that mix, then all assumptions are out the window.
So, the length of the course needs to be taken into account with the allocated non-supervised training activities. I see client’s strategies with ridiculous time allocations just to justify the volume of learning. In reality, the course should be delivered over a longer duration. As a general rule, and for a learner who is an existing worker, I think 5 hours per week is totally realistic. 10 hours per week is verging on the maximum and 15 hours per week is getting unrealistic. Anything over 15 hours per week and you are living in fairyland!
Conclusion
I totally realise that there are many factors which are inhibiting RTO’s from delivering an amount of training which is consistent with the requirements of the training package. Not the least of these is the limitation of the amount of funding that can be accessed for funded programs and the increasing cost of delivery. There are also significant competitive forces at play and loud demands from industry for shorter duration programs to support their productivity. These are all part of the mix of reasons why a course is being delivered in a shorter duration. I get it. The hard reality is that the regulator does not recognise any of these issues as a valid excuse for a low amount of training. It’s like, white noise to them. As you try and explain this, the auditor will just look down their nose at you while thinking to themselves what a dirty and cheap private RTO you are!
Ok, I probably went a bit too far there, but you get my point. 🙂
The absolute trick to compliance is to offer a good course with a structured learning and assessment pathway which provides suitable opportunities for the learner to acquire all of the required knowledge and skills and be able to practice applying these prior to their assessment. That is basically the panacea of complying with the amount of training requirement. Make sure you apply the factors that help to justify your allocated training particularly where this training is non-supervised and keep it real and realistic. Finally, don’t forget to include a robust rationale for why the amount of training is lower than the volume of learning indicator.
In our next edition, we will focus on providing a justification or rationale for a reduced amount of training applicable to clause 1.2 of the RTO standards. Keep an eye out for Part Two of the Amount of Training.
Good training,
Joe Newbery
Published: 27th September 2018
Copyright © Newbery Consulting 2018. All rights reserved.
Return to Newbery Blog Posts Click
Important Information
Newbery Consulting provides this information on the understanding that users will exercise their own skill and care with respect to its use. Before relying on this information in any important matter, users should carefully evaluate the accuracy, completeness and relevance of the information for their purposes and should obtain appropriate professional advice relevant to their particular circumstances. The material may include views or recommendations of third parties which do not necessarily reflect the views of Newbery Consulting or indicate its commitment to a particular course of action.
Links to other publications and organisations have been inserted for convenience and do not constitute endorsement of material within those publications or any associated organisation, product or service. It is the responsibility of users to make their own decisions about the accuracy, currency and reliability of the information at those sites.
By accessing this information, the user waives and releases Newbery Consulting to the full extent permitted by law from any and all claims relating to the usage of this material. Under no circumstances, shall Newbery Consulting be liable for any incident or consequential damages resulting from the use of this material.
VET News – 5th September 2018
|
The Training and Assessment Strategy
The Training and Assessment Strategy
The national regulator has identified the minimum requirements that must be presented in the RTO’s training and assessment strategies. The following information is a summary of this advice with additional commentary from Newbery Consulting on the recommended content and structure of your training and assessment strategies:
Strategies for training and assessment must be available for each mode of delivery and/or client cohort for each training product you have on the scope of registration. The training and assessment strategy ideally focus on the needs of one type of learner cohort with the same primary mode of delivery.
Each training and assessment strategy must include:
- The target training product code and title. This means that all qualification or unit of competency training product codes and titles should be clearly identified in accordance with how they appear in the national training package.
- Identify the core and elective units of competency and provide any rationale about alignment with the qualification packaging rules
- The learner cohort for the relevant training product, including:
- who they are (employment status, reason for learning, etc)
- expected pre-existing knowledge and skills
- related industry experience
- The entry requirements for the training product, including:
- requirements set by the relevant training package or accredited course
- local requirements set by your organisation such as being an existing worker or holding specific units of competency or qualification
- licensing, legislative or regulatory requirements
- language literacy and numeracy requirements
- The high-level delivery arrangements, including:
- mode of delivery, such as face-to-face at RTO premises, face-to-face at workplace, online, distance or mixed delivery method
- duration of the course
- unit delivery structure and sequence
- pre or co-requisite units of competency
- target learner cohort group size (min / max)
- student / trainer ratio for theory / practical training and assessment
- work placement (if relevant to the training product)
- possible variations for students with different learning needs
- The learning and assessment activities and events for all units of competency, (typically displayed in a suggested course program or learning and assessment schedule) including:
- supervised training activities (theory and practical) identified for each unit of competency showing when these are scheduled over the course duration
- non-supervised training activities (online learning, self-paced learning, workplace learning) identified for each unit of competency showing when these are scheduled over the course duration
- assessment events and tasks identified for each unit of competency showing when these are issued and are due over the course duration
- reflects the sequencing of units of competency and displays how learning and assessment activities for each unit of competency may link or overlap in parallel activity
- shows any block activities such as work placement, field trips, term breaks, et cetera
- complements any claims about allocated time made in regard to the amount of training (so if you claim five hours per week of self-paced learning then there should be five hours’ worth of self-paced learning activities displayed for each week)
- The amount of training for each training product should be fully described, including:
- amount of training (not including assessment) for each mode of training including supervised and non-supervised training activities
- is sufficient to address the complexity of the training product and gives students sufficient time to fully absorb all required skills and knowledge and develop, practice and apply the skills and knowledge prior to assessment
- provides a calculation of the total amount of training (not including assessment)
- provides a justification or rationale where the amount of training is not consistent with the benchmark AQF volume of learning, taking into consideration the existing skills and experience of the target learner cohort, efficiencies in the mode of delivery and any units of competency which will be achieved prior to the course commencement through credit transfer or RPL
- The resources requirements:
- learning resources (textbooks, handouts, Internet references, presentations, et cetera)
- assessment tools (assessor instructions, mapping documents, candidate instructions, et cetera)
- trainers and assessors (include a basic staff matrix)
- equipment (include all equipment and its required quantities for the planned number of students)
- consumable items (these are non-durable items such as food, rubber gloves, timber, et cetera that is consumed during learning and assessment)
- facilities in support of theory and practical training and assessment
- The work placement requirements (if applicable), including:
- organising responsibility
- work placement agreement
- dress and personal equipment
- minimum time or attendance pattern
- orientation and induction
- volunteer insurance
- supervision arrangements
- scope of work (tasks) to be performed
- third party evidence requirements
- monitoring and reporting arrangements
- workplace logbook
- statutory requirements (working with children check)
- Industry consultation that informed the development of the training and assessment strategy, including:
- the persons or organisations engaged with
- the details of the engagement such as dates
- the outcomes of industry engagement focusing on unit selection, suitability of equipment and resources, incorporating industry SOPs or forms, alignment of assessment tasks with industry practices, updating learning content for codes of practice, workplace procedures, et cetera
- Describes the process for review of the strategy including how the review will occur, the data to be collected, who should be involved and the timeframe for the review. Data for the review can be sourced from the following activities:
- student surveys
- feedback from trainers and assessors
- industry consultation
- assessment validation
- complaints or appeals
- The following annexes are recommended:
- Annex A – Course Program (as described above)
- Annex B – Equipment and Resource Inventory
- Annex C – Trainer Matrix
- Annex D – Record of industry consultation
Tips for the young and not so young players:
- Provide a summary of the delivery arrangements on the front cover. This is great to set up the context for the rest of the document. This doesn’t need to take up more than half a page and should include very basic information such as, described the target learner, the course duration, the mode of delivery, the student instructor ratio, the unit structure, et cetera
- Write the document with the target audience as the trainer. Remember, this document is basically your operational plan for the delivery of a service. You are trying to communicate these delivery arrangements to the trainer. The trainer is the target audience.
- Don’t feel like you need to fill up the training and assessment strategy with lots of fluff and unnecessary content. Just make a statement early in the document that says that the strategy must be read in conjunction with the associated course learning and assessment materials and organisational policy and procedure.
- Focus the strategy on a particular learner cohort. Do not try and produce a strategy document that covers off the training needs of multiple cohorts. It confuses the reader and is problematic in dealing with things like describing the amount of training and describing the planned learning and assessment activities which may vary for different cohorts.
- Establish a systematic review process to conduct a “stop check” on a six-monthly cycle to confirm that your training and assessment strategies still online with the current delivery model. The alignment with the current delivery and the marketing is virtually the first thing that the national regulator checks. This six-monthly review does not need to be some overly bureaucratic or complex activity. Just go over the document and confirm that it still aligns with your current arrangements and if not updated and update the version.
- Do not utilise nominal hours as a basis for determining the amount of training or comparing this with the AQF volume of learning. The only reference point you should use to determine your amount of training is the AQF level of your qualification, the number of units of competency required to be achieved and the AQF recommended benchmark volume of learning. I agree, the current requirement is far from perfect, but you just need to get on with it.
- Make sure that you have alignment of information within the strategy relating to the amount of training. If you specify that your target learner is an existing worker in marketing and communication, then you need to make sure that your local entry requirements specify that the learner must meet this criteria. If this is not consistent and you are relying on this as part of your rationale for a reduced amount of training, then it will not correspond to your description of the amount of training or the rationale.
- Make sure that your described learning and assessment activities aligned with your learning and assessment material. The number of times I have found the client referring to some assessment method that is not supported by either the unit of competency or the develop learning and assessment material would blow your mind. It’s a simple thing to get right you just need attention to detail.
- Provide as much detail about the recommended inclusions listed above as possible. Providing generic statements or insufficient detail is counter-productive to presenting a compliant training and assessment strategy. Include as much detail as possible. Describe every arrangement in every detail. Avoid generic statements that apply to any qualification.
We have provided a nice template that you may wish to use to assist in the development of your training and assessment strategies. You can download this at the link below.
Good training,
Joe Newbery
Published: 5th September 2018
Copyright © Newbery Consulting 2018. All rights reserved.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Important Information
Newbery Consulting provides this information on the understanding that users will exercise their own skill and care with respect to its use. Before relying on this information in any important matter, users should carefully evaluate the accuracy, completeness and relevance of the information for their purposes and should obtain appropriate professional advice relevant to their particular circumstances. The material may include views or recommendations of third parties which do not necessarily reflect the views of Newbery Consulting or indicate its commitment to a particular course of action.
Links to other publications and organisations have been inserted for convenience and do not constitute endorsement of material within those publications or any associated organisation, product or service. It is the responsibility of users to make their own decisions about the accuracy, currency and reliability of the information at those sites.
By accessing this information, the user waives and releases Newbery Consulting to the full extent permitted by law from any and all claims relating to the usage of this material. Under no circumstances, shall Newbery Consulting be liable for any incident or consequential damages resulting from the use of this material.
RTO Consulting Support – Terms and Conditions
Consulting Services – Terms and Conditions
Please take the time to read through these terms and conditions carefully. These are not your typical legalistic terms and conditions. They explain how we will work thogether and yours and our responsibilities. They will help you make a decision about proceeding with this service or not. Make a list of questions and if you are keen to have a discussion with Joe, submit an enquiry and we can set that up on phone or Zoom.
1. Agreement
1.1 When you submit the purchase for the Consulting Services, you are required to indicate by ticking the checkbox that you have read, understood and agree to these terms and conditions associated with the RTO Consulting Support service. Evidence of this acknowledgement will be retained within Newbery Consulting client records. These terms and conditions came into effect on the 30th June 2018 and remain current.These terms and conditions are applicable to consulting services advertised on this website such as RTO Consulting Support, Change of Ownership, Rectification Support, Audit, Desk Audit and Accredited Course Concept Proposal.
2. Objective and time allocation
2.1 Consulting Services is simply a way of allocating an amount of time to be used by the client to obtain advice from Newbery Consulting. Consulting Services Terms and Conditions cover a range of consulting services listed at section 1.1. These services therefore have different time allocations with some on a day rate per cost and others on a fixed rate. The following time allocation apply:
2.1.1 RTO Consulting Support – 8 hours
2.1.2 RTO Change of Ownership – No limit, until the application is accepted
2.1.3 RTO Rectification Support – No limit, until the rectification is submitted
2.1.4 Rolling Review of Compliance – 32 hours
2.1.5 Course Accreditation – No limit, until the course is accredited
2.2 The objective of this package is to provide the client the necessary tools and timely advice to navigate their compliance responsibilities. You may utilise these hours at any time during this process; however, you are recommended to take a planned and deliberate approach to gain the maximum benefit from this time. Consulting Services is delivered remotely typically using teleconference and videoconference. You are recommended to schedule support sessions of a one-hour duration at certain points where you have evidence to review or particular advice to seek. For RTO Consulting Support, you are able to purchase additional support time at any point .
2.3 The Consulting Services expires 12 months after the date on which it was commenced. Any unused portion of the consulting support is forfeited.
3. Costs
3.1 The cost for services covered by these Terms and Conditions are as follows:
3.1.1 RTO Consulting Support – $1,650.00
3.1.2 RTO Change of Ownership – $5,720.00
3.1.3 RTO Rectification Support – $8,580.00
3.1.4 Rolling Review of Compliance – $5,720.00
3.1.5 Course Accreditation – $7,150.00 as an upfront payment and $3,300.00 on course accreditation.
4. Type of support that can be provided under RTO Consulting Support
4.1 RTO Consulting Support is particularly useful to undertake the following:
4.1.1 providing advice about the development of a training and assessment strategy
4.1.2 review of learning and assessment resources for compliance and quality
4.1.3 responding to questions about the regulatory process
4.1.4 educating the client on the requirements of the RTO standards
4.1.5 preparing the client to engage in an ASQA performance assessment
4.1.6 reviewing and providing advice on application evidence (excluding RTO Registration applications)
4.1.7 responding to non-compliance identified during an ASQA performance assessment
4.1.8 assistance with preparing an application for a funding contract or expression of interest
5. Preliminary activities
5.1 Get in contact first. Before you commence this service, it is recommended that you get in contact and schedule a discussion with Joe to discuss what you have planned and how the service works. Joe will ask you lots of questions about the purpose or objective of the work and what approach he would recommend. Sometimes, these discussion can identify that what you had in mind is not possible or may require a different service.
5.2 Skill and Capacity. It is important to note that Consulting Services is a support service that provides you with high level consulting advice about your RTO compliance and development.This does not include Newbery Consulting taking over and doing the work for you. We just simply do not operate like that. You will need to have people with skills that can perform the work in response to the advice that we provide. It is important that you employ or otherwise can engage suitable persons with skills and knowledge within your organisation to prepare learning and assessment material to meet the requirements of nationally recognised training. You are recommended to establish a solution or arrangement for this prior to commencing this service. We are experienced at providing advice toward this work, but if the person performing the work does not understand how to apply or respond to our advice, it will seriously impact on the time needed to achieve your desired outcome. If you plan to develop learning and assessment resources yourself, it is critical that you have access to a competent person to perform this work.
5.3 Registered business. This services is only delivered as a business to business transaction. A valid ABN, entity details and contact details must be supplied in the purchase form.
5.4 File sharing. We will often want to set up a shared dropbox with you so that we can share files and colaborate in their development. If you do not currently have an account on Dropbox, you can establish a free account here (click).
6. Communication
6.1 During this service, we are going to be communicating a lot. It is important that we have some ground rules for how communication will work and what to expect. In general, we have the following preferences and guidelines for communications:
6.1.1 The preferred method of communicating with the consultant is email. We use email to give advice, receive your questions and documents for review. If you send a document to the consultant for review, maybe allow 3-4 days for a response with feedback.
6.1.2 We prefer not to use text messages to communicate unless it is something super urgent like letting us know you are running late for a zoom or something like that. The consultant may send you a text if they are running late. We do not provide consulting advice over text and if you send the consultant a text asking for this, the consultant will revert you back to email.
6.1.3 We do not communicate through any form of social media (such as Linkedin chat, Facebook Messenger), ever.
6.1.4 All scheduled meetings are conducted on Zoom. Sometimes depending how the data is performing, we may talk on the phone and share a screen on Zoom. We can also use Teams, but prefer Zoom. We generally have a 30-60 minutes meetings on a frequency based on your needs. Most clients like to schedule a meeting week-to-week or we can schedule a fixed reoccurring meeting. If you have some burning issue, we can generally schedule an ad-hoc meeting most days, even if for 15-30 minutes. The consultant schedules meeting Mon-Thu 9:00 am to 4:00 pm and Fri 9:00 am – 2:00 pm. These meeting are your meetings. So, you drive the agenda to discuss the issues and questions you have based on your requirements.
6.1.5 Timings, you can send us an email anytime you like. The consultant will often respond to email early morning between 4-7 am. The consultant will monitor emails virtually every waking hour but will generally not respond to emails after 5 pm. The consultant also will generally not respond to emails on the weekend unless it is something super urgent.
6.1.6 Please be aware that the consultant may use voice recognition software to write. This includes emails and whilst a quick proof read is typically completed before sending, sometimes emails may include minor software interpretation errors.
6.1.7 We use email, phone, Zoom and Teams to communicate. That’s it. Please do not request that we subscribe to some new collaboration platform as this will be declined.
6.1.8 We all need to keep our communication courteous and professional. We should give each other the time to talk and make their point and try to avoid talking over the top of each other. We will have robust discussions and sometimes we may not completely agree. That is ok, as long as we respect each other’s opinion and work toward finding a middle ground way forward.
7. What we do not do in supplying RTO Consulting Support
7.1 It is critically important to note that Newbery Consulting provide advice only during this service. In addition to our advice, we are happy to provide examples of documents you are working on to guide your development but only if we have these available at the time. We are expert consultants in vocational education and training and compliance with the Standards for RTOs 2015 and the National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2018. We are not business consultants, financial advisors, realestate agents, building certifiers, legal advisors or accountants. We are very disciplined at staying in our lane and recommend that you always seek advice from those qualified and experienced to provide it. If you seek advice about something that is outside our area of expertise, we will simply advise you that this is not something we can advise you on.
7.2 It is also important to note that Consulting Services is not a substitue for the RTO Registration service that we offer. If you are looking for consulting support for your RTO registration, then please consider the RTO Registration project. If you purchase this service and it becomes clear that your objective is to register an RTO, we reserve the right to terminate the service.
7.3 It is important to note that during this service Newbery Consulting do not:
7.3.1 develop your learning and assessment strategies, tools or resources,
7.3.2 customise your policies and procedures or forms and tools,
7.3.3 provide advice or support in business development or financial planning,
7.3.4 provide advice on building approval for BCA or local government requirements,
7.3.5 provide advice on building rental or lease terms and agreements,
7.3.6 provide advice or support to your financial viability risk assessment,
7.3.7 provide support or consultation on site or at your premises,
7.3.8 develop application evidence on your behalf,
7.3.9 provide RTO registration support or services;
7.3.10 provide advice on migration to Australia or visa conditions,
7.3.11 provide advice on industrial relations or worker rights and entitlements,
7.3.12 provide legal advice,
7.3.13 provide consulting support toward any government funding contracts,
7.3.14 communicate on your behalf to the National VET Regulator,
7.3.15 represent you at or attend audits conducted by the National VET Regulator, and
7.3.16 provide services which can be construed as a High Managerial Agent.
8. Disclaimer
8.1 Newbery Consulting makes the Consulting Services available on the understanding that Clients’ exercise their own skill and care with respect to its use. Before relying on the advice provided in this service in any important matter, clients should carefully evaluate the accuracy, completeness and relevance of the information for their purposes and should obtain appropriate professional advice relevant to their particular circumstances.
8.2 In relation to providing support to apply for a funding contract or expression of interest. Whilst Newbery Consulting can assist you in preparing the application evidence according to the application criteria and eligibility requirements, we have absolutely no control over the assessment of the application or the considerations that a department may give to the evidence. There are many reasons why an application for a funding contract or expression of interest may be rejected. Some examples of these may include:
8.2.1 the applicant’s performance or inexperience
8.2.2 the applicant’s delivery of quality services
8.2.3 the applicant’s teaching and leadership practices
8.2.4 the applicant’s competitiveness with other high quality applicants
8.2.5 the applicant’s approach to individualised support for students
8.2.6 market conditions relating to supply and demand for training products
8.2.7 the applicant’s innovative approaches to training
8.2.8 the applicant’s financial viability or operational structure
8.3 Newbery Consulting will certainly assist you to present your application in the best possible light to maximise your competitiveness in the application process. In choosing to proceed with this service you acknowledge that there is a high degree of risk in applying for any application and the application will be judged on its merits based on factors that are outside the control of Newbery Consulting. You acknowledge that we have no control over the applicants past performance, current ability to deliver quality services, the current market conditions, the applicant’s financial viability, operational structure or any other random consideration that a department may give to application evidence.
9. Refunds
9.1 If you wish to cancel the service you can simply advise Newbery Consulting of this decision via email at: enquiries@newberyconsulting.com.au.
9.2 No refunds whatsoever will be given for a cancelled services where initial consultation has already commenced. Prior to any consultation being provided, you are entitled to receive a full refund of the payment made to Newbery Consulting. Consultation includes any meeting via phone or video conference or providing advice via email. If you change your mind and would like a refund prior to any consultation being provided, then notify us immediately. Businesses should be aware of their rights as a business consumer by reviewing the information at the ACCC Business Rights page (click).
9.3 The following are not valid grounds for a business to request a refund:
9.3.1 has changed its mind,
9.3.2 has experienced a change in circumstances,
9.3.3 failed to plan prior to commencing the service,
9.3.4 has experienced a change in market conditions,
9.3.5 has insufficient time and resources to progress,
9.3.6 could not satisfy fit and proper person requirements,
9.3.7 could not demonstrate financial viability,
9.2.8 do not have sufficient skill and capacity,
9.3.9 could not recruit competent and current trainers,
9.3.10 has decided to engage a different consultant,
9.3.11 chooses not to use either part or all of the services, or
9.3.12 have discovered a new business opportunity.
10. Refusal, Cancellation or Cessation of Service
10.1 We reserve the right to refuse, cancel or cease the service for any reason we deem appropriate. The following are some examples of why we may refuse, cancel or cease the service:
10.1.1 Rude, offensive or abusive behaviour. Rude, offensive or abusive behaviour toward Newbery Consulting staff by you or any representative from your organisation, will not be tolerated and will result in immediate cancellation of the service without warning.
10.1.2 Breach of terms and conditions. Breach or failure to comply with these terms and conditions or any other terms and conditions of related products and services will result in immediate cancellation of service without warning.
10.1.3 Failure to follow advice. Failure by the client to follow the advice provided by Newbery Consulting will not be tolerated particularly where the actions of the client are likely to result in non-compliant arrangements being presented to the national VET regulator. Failure to follow the advice provided by Newbery Consulting will result in the cancellation of the service after fair warning has been provided.
10.1.4 Failure to protect the interests of students and consumers. Any action taken, or arrangement implemented by the client that Newbery Consulting consider fails to protect the interests of prospective learners of the client or consumers will result in the cancellation of the service after fair warning has been provided.
11. Confidentiality
11.1 Newbery Consulting agrees that any information received by it during the provision of services relating to your organisation, operational or commercial affairs is “Confidential Information” shall be treated by Newbery Consulting in strict confidence and will not be revealed to any other persons or organisation unless compelled to do so under the law.
11.2 Newbery Consulting acknowledge that the Confidential Information that is held or owned by the Client is valuable proprietary information and that harm may be caused to the Client by its disclosure.
11.3 Newbery Consulting agrees to hold in strictest confidence the Confidential Information and not to divulge, provide or otherwise make available or to allow any of its employees, agents, sub-contractors or representatives to divulge, provide or otherwise to make available to any person in whole or in part, any of the Confidential Information other than:
11.3.1 with the prior written consent of the Client;
11.3.2 by operation of law provided that all available legal steps have been taken to prevent or limit such disclosure;
11.3.3 to use and to ensure that its employees, agents, sub-contractors and representatives use the Confidential Information solely for the purpose of this agreement.
11.3.4 to take or cause to be taken such precautions as may be reasonably required by the Client to maintain the secrecy and confidentiality of the Confidential Information and to prevent its disclosure.
11.4 Newbery Consulting may be compelled under s 62 of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (Cth) to provide information to the National VET Regulator by issuing a written notice to Newbery Consulting to give information and documents. It is an offence under s 64 of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 to not provide information and documents when requested to do so. Newbery Consulting will comply with written notices issued by the National VET Regulator.
12. Waiver of Liability
12.1 By accessing the Consulting Services, the Client waives and releases Newbery Consulting to the full extent permitted by law from any and all claims relating to the usage of product or the provision of advice and under no circumstances whatsoever shall Newbery Consulting be deemed to assume any responsibility for or obligation or duty with respect to any part or all of the Client’s business.
13. Acknowledgement of Terms and Conditions
13.1 By purchasing the Consulting Services you acknowledge that you on behalf of your business entity understand and agreed to these Terms and Conditions. These Terms and Conditions should be read in-conjunction with the other related Terms and Conditions. Acknowledgement of these Terms and Conditions implies acknowledgement of all related Terms and Conditions.
Published – 30th June 2018
Updated – 5th October 2022 – Inclusion of clauses 8.2, 8.3 and related sub-clauses
Copyright © Newbery Consulting 2022. All rights reserved.
VET News – 15th August 2018
|
RTO Registration
RTO Data Cloud
RTO Webinars
Introducing RTO Data Cloud
Newbery Consulting has been supplying student management software for over 10 years. Our RTO Data Desktop software has been hugely successful and much loved by the many RTOs that have used it to operate their RTOs and comply with reporting requirements. But, it was time for us to move to the next stage of this system’s evolution and it was a logical progression to redevelop our software as a cloud based service. This has been two years in development and takes account of over a decade of lessons learned and understanding client requirements. We think that RTO Data Cloud will change the landscape of the Australian student management system market. We are proud to offer it to you and it would be our pleasure to offer you access as a trial user and if you like what you see, come on over.
RTO Registration – Terms and Conditions
RTO Registration – Terms and Conditions
Please take the time to read through these terms and conditions carefully. These are not your typical legalistic terms and conditions. They explain how we will work thogether and yours and our responsibilities. They will help you make a decision about proceeding with this service or not. Make a list of questions and if you are keen to have a discussion with Joe, submit an enquiry and we can set that up on phone or Zoom.
1. Agreement
1.1 When you submit the purchase order for the RTO or CRICOS Registration package, you are required to indicate by ticking the checkbox that you have read, understood and agree to these terms and conditions associated with the RTO or CRICOS Registration package. Evidence of this acknowledgement will be retained within Newbery Consulting client records. These terms and conditions came into effect on the 1st January 2020 and remain current.
1.2 When readng these terms and conditions, any reference to RTO Rgistration is referring to both the RTO Registration package and CRICOS Registration package.
2. Costs
2.1 Cost for this service. The cost for this service is as follows:
2.1.1 RTO Registration Domestic – $14,300.00 ($8,800.00 upfront and $5,500.00 on RTO registration.)
2.1.2 RTO Registration CRICOS – $16,500.00 ($11,00.00 upfront and $5,500.00 on RTO registration.)
2.1.3 The completion payment of $5,500.00 is invoiced when your entity is registered on the national training register at training.gov.au.
3. Before purchasing this package
3.1 Before proceeding with the purchase of the RTO Registration package, Newbery Consulting require that you are satisfied that you meet the following requirements:
3.2 Legal entity. You have already established a suitable legal entity as the applicant for the RTO registration and which is registered with an Australian Business Number.
3.3 Fit and Proper Person Requirements. All owners, directors, officeholders or significant persons who may have a role in the organisation or have influence over the RTO operation will meet the Fit and Proper Person Requirements (click) specified by the national regulator. This will be demonstrated during the application process by all persons being required to complete a Fit and proper person requirements declaration (click).
3.4 Financial Viability. Your business entity will be able to demonstrate its financial viability and meet the Financial Viability Risk Assessment Requirements 2011 (click) specified by the national regulator. This will be demonstrated during the application process by having your qualified accountant complete the following financial viability risk assessment tool (click). We strongly recommend that you meet with your accountant and review these requirements prior to commencing this service. To be clear, we do not expect you to complete a financial viability assessment prior to engaging us. We want you to be satisfied and confident that the financial viability will be ok on your end. It is not something we have any control over, so we simply recommend at least a discussion with your Accountant so that you can have this confidence. It is important that you have engaged with a qualified accountant to assist with the development of your business/financial plan and to perform your financial viability risk assessment.
3.5 The national regulator specify that the nominated accountant that performs your financial viability risk assessment must be an external and independent accountant engaged by you and must be a member of one or more of the following professional bodies:
3.5.1 CPA Australia,
3.5.2 The Institute of Chartered Accountants Australia,
3.5.3 The Institute of Public Accountants, or
3.5.4 Registered with the Australian Securities and Investment Commission as an auditor.
3.6 Funding Contracts and Training subsidies. Much of the training delivered in Australia is delivered by training organisations which have secured contracts with State funding authorities or Commonwealth programs such as the VET Student Loan contract. If your intended funding model for your RTO operation will be dependent on securing these types of contracts, you need to fully research these opportunities before you commence this project. Assisting you with securing a funding contract is not part of this service. You should also be aware that many of these funding contracts require the RTO to be successfully operating for a minimum number of years (usually 2-3) before you are eligible to apply. Many of these State funding contracts are basically closed to new providers and have not issued an expression of interest for many years. If you are thinking about securing a VET Student Loan contract, forget this. It is not possible or realistic to secure this contract within a 7-10 year initial period of operation and even then, you need to have a level of financial viability that is out of reach to any small or medium sized business. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it is good that you are realising this now before you commence our project. If you are planning an RTO to operate on a student fee-for-service basis or a business-to-business payment basis, great! You are in the right place.
3.7 Operating Premises / Delivery sites. You have access to or can otherwise secure a suitable premises from where training and assessment will be delivered or coordinated from. This will require you to provide evidence in the application process that the facility is of a suitable size and amenity, have a current lease/ownership and have local government approval to operate from the premises as a training organisation if applicable. Some local government authorities do not require this and so in that case, it will not be applicable. For a CRICOS application, 9B building certification is a requirement and evidence of this must be supplied with the application submission. Just as a guide for a basic classroom, we recommend ten (10) square meters for the trainer and walkways and two (2) square meters per student. So, as an example, if you wanted to teach 20 students in a classroom, you would need a classroom of about 50 square meters.
3.8 Learning and Assessment Materials. You have access to or capacity to develop suitable learning and assessment materials to support the delivery of the training products which you will be applying to the national regulator for approval to deliver. By “learning and assessment materials” we are referring to the learning content, learner guides, presentations, activity instructions, session plans, self-paced learning activities, assessment tools, et cetera in support of each unit of competency. Some important considerations:
3.8.1 Newbery Consulting do not develop these materials as part of this service. Newbery Consulting will provide advice about the compliance of materials, and it is the responsibility of your organisation to undertake the required development work to demonstrate compliance.
3.8.2 Please note that, the standard of learning and assessment materials in meeting the requirements of training packages for initial registration is extremely high. Please beware of buying learning and assessment materials online that are cheap. You usually get what you paid for. There are some really dodgy suppliers of learning and assessment materials, so buyer beware. Newbery Consulting will be happy to review a sample of commercial learning and assessment resources with you and help you choose a package that is as close to compliance as possible. To be clear, they are all non-compliant so even if you purchase the best resources available, you will still need to customise and modify these to support your delivery.
3.8.3 Make sure you do your homework on the options before you commence the project. Investigate if the training product (qualification of units of competency) is about to be superseded. Nothing worse than spending a lot of money on buying a commercial learning and assessment package only for it to be superseded before or during your application is approved. Checkout the relevant Training Package Developer website to see if your training product is identified as a current or future project to release a revised training product. If unsure, give them a call and ask for the project office responsible for your training product.
3.8.4 If the training product you are seeking to deliver is not supported by good quality commercial learning and assessment resources, then you will need to develop these yourself. If this is the case, you need to factor this into your planned cost and timelines. This can be a significant piece of work and can often lead to clients stalling in the project due to their inability to make progress with other work/life commitments.
3.8.5 If you are currently using the learning and assessment resources of another RTO that you partner with, let’s be clear, these resources are not yours to use without their permission or applicable licence if they are commercial resources that the RTO purchased. Starting your new training business with learning and assessment resources you have stolen from someone else is not on. Forget this as an option. Newbery Consulting has no tolerance for copyright infringement or the theft of intellectual property. Plan on purchasing your own resources or developing these yourself.
3.9 Skills and Capacity. You employ or otherwise can engage suitable persons with skills and knowledge within your organisation to prepare learning and assessment material to meet the requirements of nationally recognised training. You are recommended to establish a solution or arrangement for this prior to commencing this service. You will need to apply suitable time and resources to prepare the application evidence and be responsive to the advice provided by Newbery Consulting. It is not the role of Newbery Consulting to teach your staff how to develop learning and assessment resources. We are experienced at providing advice toward this work, but if the person performing the work does not understand how to apply or respond to our advice, it will seriously impact on the time needed to develop material and potentially on the success of your application. If you plan to develop learning and assessment resources yourself, it is critical that you have access to a competent person to perform this work.
3.10 Competent and Current Trainers. You employ or otherwise can engage a sufficient number of competent and current trainers who hold the vocational competency in the training products they intend to deliver and are also competent in training and assessment such as hold a TAE40116 Certificate IV in Training and Assessment. These trainers will need to demonstrate their current industry skills and knowledge and the ongoing professional development in vocational education and training. It is important to acknowledge that, it is not sufficient to simply hold the right qualifications. If your nominated trainer does not have sufficient industry experience in the skills they indent to train and assess, they will not be accepted by the national VET regulator. It is important to consider where and how you will engage suitable trainers before you commence this project. Be aware that trainers who are engaged as an employee will come under the Educational Services (Post-Secondary Education) Award 2020. Trainers who are engaged as a contract trainer on an as required basis are usually being paid about $55 per hour inclusive of GST. The cost of engaging trainers is one of the biggest costs in any RTO so it is important to fully understand this cost before you commence this project.
3.11 The current market vs initial registration. Before you commence this project, it is important to realise that there is often a big difference between what you can observe some current RTOs are getting away with and what will be expected of you to get your RTO registered. Let me give you an example. Scenario: You want to deliver training in the Certificate IV in Work Health and Safety. You see that some existing providers are delivering this course in 5 days, Mon-Fri. These students seriously start the course on the Monday and walk out with a certificate on the Friday. These RTOs are charging $1,500.00 per student and are advertising this 5 day course and are filling classrooms with 25 students at a time. Money for Jam! This is what I would call a “rubbish course”. These students are seriously learning nothing. Courses like this are undermining the value and quality of nationally recognised training and worse, are leading to those students holding a qualification which they do not have the skills and knowledge to support. You might ask, how do they get away with this? That is a great question! You only need to Google to find these providers and the National VET Regulator seems to be doing nothing to stop them. Essentially, I think that these providers are ticking along in their registration period with no other significant risk factors that would draw attention, no complaints from students and so they fly under the radar. ASQA just do not have the resources to deal with all these providers and so, that’s how they get away with it. The issue for you registering your RTO is that you will be held to a very different standard. Essentially, your course will need to be fully compliant. As an example, the minimum volume of learning hours for a Certificate IV in Work Health and Safety is 600 hours and we would usually have this being delivered part time over 12 months. You might be able to shave some of these hours down if your target learner are existing workers or you have designed the course in a very efficient way but even if you can get this down to say, 380 hours, you are still competing with these rubbish courses being delivered in 40 hours. Keep in mind that you will need to demonstrate that your RTO is financially viable even with this market reality. This is just one example of the current market vs initial registration. Before you jump in, you just need to realise that, at the initial registration, you need to be able to demonstrate your compliance and ASQA do not care what other RTOs are doing at that point. They are only focussed on you and assessing your application. It is good to understand this now because there is nothing worse than after a client has commenced this project and I need to explain that, no, you cannot deliver a first aid course in 5 hours or no, you cannot deliver a Certificate II in Security Operations in 4 weeks or no, you cannot deliver aged care training completely online.
3.12 The regulatory environment and application requirements. From time to time, the Government will implement reforms to the VET sector. This has occurred constantly over the past 15-20 years. These reforms in the past have entirely changed the nature of the regulatory environment in terms of the way the national regulator operates and also have led to significant change in the application requirements for initial registration. Newbery Consulting have no control over Government policy and whilst we will do our very best to adapt our service to any new requirements and support our clients, we cannot be held liable for any government policy change that prevents us from delivering our service.
3.13 Being a genuine training provider. If you are wanting to register an RTO for reasons other than genuinely delivering training and assessment you should not proceed with this service. We are talking about reasons such as to register the RTO for sale or to register the RTO simply to meet some procurement contract requirements. We are not interested in registering your RTO unless you are a genuine training provider that is seeking to deliver quality training and assessment.
3.14 Have a discussion with Joe Newbery first. Before you commence this project, it is critical that you get in contact and schedule a discussion with Joe to discuss what you have planned and how the project works. During the project, you will be working directly with Joe, so it is important that have an opportunity to meet and be comfortable that you will be able to work together. Joe will ask you lots of questions about how your planned RTO will operate and maybe give you some advice about what will work and what will not work. Sometimes, these discussion can identify that what you had in mind is not possible or may require certain other approvals in addition to your RTO registration.
3.15 Please note, if you are wanting to register the RTO with far too many training products, are in too much of a hurry, give the impression that you do not have the best interest of students or training quality in mind, you can expect that Joe will be very blunt in his assessment of your plan and will likely decline your project. So, if this describes you, maybe look for alternative consulting services before making an enquiry. We are about registering genuine training providers who what to deliver a great service to students and grow a successful business. We have been doing this for almost 20 years. We are a highly successful business and can afford to select the clients that we want to work with. Your enquiry is as much about us selecting you as you selecting us.
4. Preliminary activities
4.1 This services is only delivered as a business to business transaction. A valid ABN, entity details and contact details must be supplied in the purchase form.
4.2 Once the payment for this package has been received, Newbery Consulting will be in touch to organise a suitable time to schedule the initial teleconference. We will also confirm your entity details for the issuance of product licenses and organise to establish a shared folder on Dropbox with you.
4.3 You will then be sent a meeting request for the agreed teleconference time and date and the following products will be supplied:
4.3.1 RTO Policies and Procedures (click) to establish your compliance and quality management arrangements;
4.3.2 RTO Forms and Tools (click) to establish your administration system; and
4.3.3 RTO Data Cloud (click) to establish your student and learning management system.
4.4 These products will be supplied to you via email and will also be unpacked into the relevant folders within our shared folder on Dropbox. If you do not currently have an account on Dropbox, you can establish a free account here (click).
4.5 The shared folder will also contain many other folders that allow you to organise your application evidence. The following page describes the evidence which is required to be submitted with the RTO application and self-assessment (click). The shared folder will be arranged to capture, organise and review this evidence prior to its submission. You will need to provide the emails for all persons within your organisation that hold a valid Dropbox account to enable this folder to be shared.
4.6 With those initial products supplied, the initial teleconference scheduled and all stakeholders now having access to the shared folder, the preliminary activities are complete.
5. Initial Teleconference
5.1 The initial teleconference is conducted primarily to talk through the application requirements, the context of operation of your planned RTO and the process which will be followed to prepare and submit the application. We will need approximately 90 minutes to conduct the initial teleconference. In establishing the context of the RTO operation, the following is considered:
5.2 Your intended scope of registration. You are strongly recommended to minimise your planned scope of registration. These are the training products such as qualifications and units of competency that you intend to deliver as an RTO. There is a temptation to include every desired course on this list. This typically results in the client not being able to secure the required learning and assessment resources or obtain access to a sufficient number of qualified trainers. Your scope of registration needs to be selected on the basis of your area of industry expertise, your market analysis, financial viability, access to compliant learning and assessment resources, access to competent and current trainers and assessors, access to the required equipment, facilities and resources. These need to be rational and well considered choices based on the above factors. It is your responsibility to select your initial scope of registration based on your business needs. Newbery Consulting do not make recommendations about your planned scope of registration. Try and keep your initial scope of registration as simple as possible.
5.3 Your operating jurisdiction. You will need to nominate the states or territories in which you intend to operate as an RTO. This should be minimised to your planned operating area and be in accordance with your business plan. Nominating to operate in a particular state or territory will require you to provide evidence of access to relevant premises and facilities, competent trainers and assessors, management arrangements, et cetera to support the delivery at that location. Grandiose plans to operate a national operation may need to wait until you have established the business. Your identification of the operating jurisdiction should reflect your operation for the initial two-year period. Please note, this service is intended for RTO registration with the National VET Regulator (ASQA) and not with the remaining State based regulators being the TAC and the VRQA.
5.4 Your delivery method. You will need to nominate a planned delivery method in the application. This should reflect the arrangements that you have established to support the delivery of the training products intended in your scope of registration. It is desirable as a new RTO, that your delivery methods reflect a high quality approach to vocational education and training with an emphasis on direct contact between students and trainers and assessors. Newbery Consulting will not assist in the registration of an RTO for delivery of training products via RPL only. If you are considering such a registration (assessment only), then do not proceed with purchase. We are completely supportive of clients who seek to deliver high quality face-to-face or online learning (or a blend of those).
5.5 Delivering subsidised training. You will need to identify if you intend to deliver your training products via a contract with the State and Territory funding authorities. This is identified by the national regulator as a risk factor. It should be noted that flagging your intent to deliver subsidised training as part of the application can be premature. Some of these contracts are quite difficult to obtain access to and it could be many years before the RTO is in a position to competitively tender for these contracts when they become available. Newbery Consulting recommend that you plan your RTO operation on a consumer fee-for-service or business to business basis. Otherwise, there is a tendency for an applicant to make false assumptions about their access to these contracts in the financial viability risk assessment, before they even have a contract. Also, why would you flag this risk factor when you don’t even have access to a contract?
5.6 Being a genuine RTO applicant. As part of the application process, you will need to confirm to the national regulator that your primary purpose for applying to become an RTO is to deliver nationally recognised vocational education and training. The national regulator places a lot of emphasis on verifying that your intention to deliver nationally recognised training is genuine. Examples where the applicant is not genuine is where the sole purpose for registering the RTO is other than delivering nationally recognised training such as to sell the business soon after registration or to satisfy some government procurement requirement with no intention of actually delivering national training products. If this describes you and your intention, do not proceed with this service. Newbery Consulting are only wanting to work with businesses that fully intend on using their RTO registration for the delivery of nationally recognised vocational education and training.
5.7 Delivering offshore. You will need to identify in your application if you intend to deliver nationally recognised training offshore. This is not a reference to CRICOS delivery but simply a situation where a domestic RTO is delivering services in a country other than Australia. This does not require particular approval from the national regulator however the national regulator is required to be informed of such an arrangement and may request to review the delivery arrangements to ensure the integrity of the national training system is being maintained and Australia’s reputation is not being placed in jeopardy.
5.8 Other training organisations. As part of the application process, any owners, directors, officeholders or high managerial agents need to identify if they have an “Association” with an RTO that is either currently or has previously been registered. Association includes but is not limited to any business dealings, employment, contracting, endorsement and/or the provision of services as a third party. The details of this need to be fully declared within the fit and proper person declaration. If a person has had an interest in an RTO which has been subject to adverse findings by the national regulator then this could put the application in jeopardy or effect the fit and proper person status of the applicant.
5.9 Third party arrangements. As part of the application process, you will need to declare to the national regulator if you intend to operate the RTO using third party arrangements. These include situations where you intend to allow other businesses to deliver training and assessment services on your behalf, to undertake learner recruitment on your behalf or to deliver learner support services on your behalf. The rules for how third party arrangements are regulated changed in 2019 (click). Newbery Consulting recommend that applicants not enter into any third-party delivery or recruitment arrangement until they are well established.
5.10 During the initial teleconference, Newbery Consulting will take note of your context of operation and will prepare a detailed application action list that will identify each item of evidence and its priority for development. We will also talk through the complete application process and provide an orientation to the action list we supply and the project folder where the evidence for your application will be organised. The primary purpose of the initial teleconference, is for us to gain an understanding of your planned RTO and to introduce you to the project arrangements so we can hit the ground running. Following the initial teleconference we will usually schedule a weekly Zoom meeting so that we consult regularly to prepare the application evidence.
6. RTO Data Cloud
6.1 Following the initial teleconference, the Newbery Consulting support team will get in contact with you and establish your account on RTO Data Cloud. This product is fully described at the following page (click). RTO Data Cloud service is supplied with this project with no subscription cost for 12 months or until you are registered as an RTO. Monthly usage charges will apply from the time you commence using RTO Data Cloud as an RTO or after a 12 month period, whichever occurs first. These usage charges are explained at the following page (click). The RTO Data Cloud support team are available to guide you to set-up your courses in the software and provide unlimited system training. You are strongly recommended to review the terms and conditions for RTO Data Cloud prior to commencing this service (click). Your acceptance of these terms and conditions also confirms acceptance of the RTO Data Cloud Terms and Conditions.
7. Consulting Support
7.1 Consulting support is delivered remotely typically using teleconference. You are recommended to schedule support sessions of a one-hour duration at certain points where you have evidence to review or particular advice to seek. We schedule consulting support meetings Monday to Thursday only. We generally recommend either a weekly or fortnightly catch-up to keep things moving.
7.2 Consulting support is particularly useful during the registration process to undertake the following:
7.2.1 providing advice about the establishment of the course training and assessment strategy,
7.2.2 review of learning and assessment resources with the client,
7.2.3 responding to questions about the application process,
7.2.4 educating the client on the requirements of the RTO standards,
7.2.5 preparing the client to engage in the application assessment process,
7.2.6 reviewing and providing advice on application evidence, and
7.2.7 responding to non-compliance identified during the initial registration assessment.
7.3 Consulting support expires 12 months after the date on which it was commenced. Joe is happy to be a flexible with this, but this is dependent on the client making progress and allocating suitable time, resources and expertise to progressing the project outcomes. After the 12 months has expired, if the project has stalled, you are not responding to communication or are not allocating suitable time, resources and expertise to progressing the project outcomes, we will close the project off. Newbery Consulting reserve the right to end the project anytime after the initial 12 months at our complete discretion.
8. Communication
8.1 During this service, we are going to be communicating a lot. It is important that we have some ground rules for how communication will work and what to expect. In general, we have the following preferences and guidelines for communications:
8.1.1 The preferred method of communicating with Joe is email. We use email to give advice, receive your questions and documents for review. If you send a document to Joe for review, maybe allow 3-4 days for a response with feedback.
8.1.2 We prefer not to use text messages to communicate unless it is something super urgent like letting us know you are running late for a zoom or something like that. Joe may send you a text if he is running late. We do not provide consulting advice over text and if you send Joe a text asking this, he will revert you back to email.
8.1.3 We do not communicate through any form of social media (such as Linkedin chat, Facebook Messenger), ever.
8.1.4 All scheduled meetings are conducted on Zoom. Sometimes depending how the data is performing, we may talk on the phone and share a screen on Zoom. We can also use Teams, but prefer Zoom. We generally have a 30-60 minutes meeting once per week or fortnight if you prefer. This is particularly during the phase of preparing the application. After the application is submitted, we generally meet once a moth to make sure things are progressing. Most clients like to schedule a meeting week-to-week or we can schedule a fixed reoccurring meeting. If you have some burning issue, we can generally schedule an ad-hoc meeting most days, even if for 15-30 minutes. Joe schedules meeting Mon-Thu 9:00 am to 4:00 pm (NSW time). These meeting are your meetings. So, you drive the agenda to discuss the issues and questions you have based on your current point of progress. Joe will often use time in these meeting to educate you on regulatory requirements relating to your RTO or things to consider in the next steps of preparing the application evidence.
8.1.5 Timings, you can send us an email anytime you like. Joe often responds to email early morning between 4-7 am. Joe will monitor emails virtually every waking hour but will generally not respond to emails after 5 pm. Joe also will generally not respond to emails on the weekend unless it is something super urgent.
8.1.6 Please be aware that Joe uses voice recognition software to virtually write everything. This includes emails and whilst he generally does a quick proof read before sending, sometimes he will not have time and would prefer to send you a reply with advice rather than delaying. Please excuse any minor software interpretation errors.
8.1.7 We use email, phone, Zoom and Teams to communicate. That’s it. Please do not request that we subscribe to some new collaboration platform as this will be declined.
8.1.8 We all need to keep our communication courteous and professional. We should give each other the time to talk and make their point and try to avoid talking over the top of each other. We will have robust discussions and sometimes we may not completely agree. That is ok, as long as we respect each other’s opinion and work toward finding a middle ground way forward.
9. What we do not do in supplying this RTO Registration service
9.1 It is critically important to note that Newbery Consulting provide products and advice only during this service. In addition to our products, we are happy to provide examples and give you advice about preparing certain documents, but do not undertake this development on your behalf . We work alongside you to guide you to prepare and submit the application and register the RTO. We do complete the application self-assessment and submit the application on ASQAnet on your behalf when we are happy with the application evidence. We are expert consultants in vocational education and training and compliance with the Standards for RTOs 2015 and the National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2018. We are not business consultants, financial advisors, realestate advisors, building certifiers, legal advisors or accountants. We are very disciplined at staying in our lane and recommend that you always seek advice from those qualified and experienced to provide it.
9.2 It is important to note that during this service Newbery Consulting do not:
9.2.1 develop your learning and assessment strategies, tools or resources,
9.2.2 customise your policies and procedures or forms and tools,
9.2.3 provide support to develop your business or financial plan,
9.2.4 provide advice on building approval for BCA or local government requirements,
9.2.5 provide advice on building rental or lease terms and agreements,
9.2.6 provide business advice outside of the RTO registration,
9.2.7 provide advice on human resource management or staff recruitment,
9.2.8 provide advice or support to your financial viability risk assessment,
9.2.9 provide support or consultation on site or at your premises,
9.2.10 develop application evidence on your behalf,
9.2.11 provide advice on migration to Australia or visa conditions,
9.2.12 provide advice on industrial relations or worker rights and entitlements,
9.2.13 provide legal advice,
9.2.14 provide consulting support toward any government funding contracts,
9.2.15 communicate on your behalf to the National VET Regulator,
9.2.16 represent you at or attend audits conducted by the National VET Regulator, and
9.2.17 provide services which can be construed as a High Managerial Agent.
10. Timeframe for Registration
10.1 The typical time to achieve registration is about 10-18 months assuming you have access to appropriate facilities, equipment, trainers, learning and assessment resources, finances, etc. Many applications can take longer than 12 months depending on the client’s other commitments, the size of the application and the availability of good quality learning and assessment resources that can be purchased. There are no shortcuts in this process. If you present to the initial registration assessment without being ready, it will result in non-compliance and take longer to rectify. Our objective is for you to avoid any complications. Do it right and do it once!
10.2 The trick to getting your RTO registered as soon as possible is:
10.2.1 Keep the courses to an absolute minimum (one or two is ideal);
10.2 2 Select courses with available and compliant learning and assessment resources if possible;
10.2.3 Appoint a dedicated person to progress the application development actions and work with us who has appropriate skill and capacity;
10.2.4 Invest in products and services that reduce your workload such as purchasing compliant learning and assessment resources and engaging an Accountant to assist with building your financial viability evidence.
10.2 5 Keep your planned initial RTO operation simple; and
10.2.6 Follow our advice and use the systems we supply.
10.3 It is important to note that this is not a registration project that has defined or expected timelines. This service involves the purchase of products and remote consulting support which can be used at your discretion. The time that it takes you to register your RTO is entirely your responsibility. If you get distracted by other business opportunities, life or do not allocate sufficient time and resources to progressing the project action items, then this will clearly have an impact on your progress. Newbery Consulting give no warranty or make no claim about the timeframe for the registration of your RTO as we have absolutely no control over this. This is completely in your hands. We can certainly help you to move very quickly if you desire to fast-track the application process. We are totally responsive to your priorities.
10.4 It is important to note that the only timeframe you have control over in this process is the time it takes to prepare and submit the application. The process after that is in the hands of the National VET Regulator. To give you an idea of the typical timeframe after the application is submitted, lets assume that with our help, you were able to submit your application within four (4) months of commencing the project. After the application has been submitted, you can expect the following typical timeframes:
10.4.1 Submit. We submit your application on – 16 December and pay the application fee.
10.4.2 Completeness Check. ASQA undertake completeness check – 27 January and issue you the invoice for the assessment fee. You pay that invoice and then the application is forwarded to the initial assessment team where it will sit for anywhere from 4-6 months until an Auditor is allocated.
10.4.3 Verification Stage. ASQA requests verification evidence and schedules closing meeting – 23 June. The Auditor allocated to your application makes contact to book in a closing meeting in about four weeks from that phone call. They will also send you a request for some final evidence such as a sample of your learning and assessment resources and evidence of your facilities and equipment.
10.4.4 Closing meeting. Closing meeting for application assessment occurs – 28 July. This is simply a meeting on Teams to close off the assessment of your application and to verify anything that is not clear. You generally will know at the end of this meeting if there is anything that needs to be addressed or not.
10.4.5 RTO Registered. If no significant non-compliance, you are registered – 8 September.
If CRICOS Application:
10.4.6 CRICOS Entry to Market. Pay Entry to Market Fee and TPS Levy – 29 September.
10.4.7 CRICOS Registered. Registered on the CRICOS register – 6 October.
10.5 In the above example timeframe, it took 14 months from the commencement of the project to get the RTO registered for domestic delivery. It also took another month for the CRICOS registration to come through. You can do this in a shorter timeframe by submitting the application more quickly, but you have no control over the timeframe once the application has been submitted, other than making sure everything is ready to go for the application verification stage.
10.6 If you are not ready for the verification stage, it is likely you will have non-compliance that needs to be rectified before your registration is approved. This can add an additional six months to the application timeframe. So that 14 months, just became 20 months. Being “not ready for the verification stage” can include not completing the customisation of learning and assessment resources for compliance and delivery, not preparing your facilities and equipment ready for delivery, et cetera. It is important to use the time you are waiting for ASQA by working hard to make sure everything is ready to go. Newbery Consulting will certainly prompt you on this and offer advice and guidance, but basically it is all down to you. If you want to avoid the additional six months, make sure everything is ready to go by the time ASQA get in contact to request verification evidence.
11. Other Costs
11.1 You acknowledge that as part of your application to become an RTO, you will incur many other costs which do not relate to services being provided by Newbery Consulting.
11.2 These costs include but are not limited to:
11.2.1 ASQA RTO application and assessment fee (click);
11.2.2 ASQA CRICOS application and assessment fee (click) if applicable;
11.2.3 CRICOS Entry to Market Fee / TPS Levy (click) if applicable;
11.2.4 Learning / assessment materials and equipment;
11.2.5 Operating and delivery premises lease and fit-out cost;
11.2.6 Staff / contractor recruitment and engagement;
11.2.7 Financial accounting fees (financial viability certification);
11.2.8 Insurance and WorkCover fees; and/or
11.2.9 Your personal time commitment.
11.3 The following article on RTO Set-up Costs explains the associated costs that may be relevant to you for consideration (click). This article includes a number of scenarios relating to different types of RTO to assist you to properly consider the cost.
12. Disclaimer
12.1 Newbery Consulting makes the RTO Registration package available on the understanding that Clients’ exercise their own skill and care with respect to its use. Before relying on the material in any important matter, users should carefully evaluate the accuracy, completeness and relevance of the information for their purposes and should obtain appropriate professional advice relevant to their particular circumstances.
13. Refunds
13. If you wish to cancel the service you can simply advise Newbery Consulting of this decision via email at: enquiries@newberyconsulting.com.au.
13.2 No refunds whatsoever will be given for a cancelled services where any product linked with the services has already been supplied. Prior to any product being supplied, you are entitled to receive a full refund of the payment made to Newbery Consulting. Products will typically be supplied within 1-12 hours of receiving payment. If you change your mind and would like a refund then notify us immediately before products are issued. Businesses should be aware of their rights as a business consumer by reviewing the information at the ACCC Consumer rights and guarantees page (click).
13.3 The following are not valid grounds for a business to request a refund:
13.3.1 has changed its mind,
13.3.2 has experienced a change in circumstances,
13.3.3 failed to plan prior to commencing the service,
13.3.4 has experienced a change in market conditions,
13.3.5 has insufficient time and resources to progress,
13.3.6 could not satisfy fit and proper person requirements,
13.3.7 could not demonstrate financial viability,
13.2.8 do not have sufficient skill and capacity,
13.3.9 could not recruit competent and current trainers,
13.3.10 has decided to engage a different consultant,
13.3.11 change to government policy outside our control (see note below),
13.3.12 chooses not to use either part or all of the products and services, or
13.3.13 have discovered a new business opportunity.
Note. In respect of clause 13.3.11, the following media release was published on the 21st February 2024 in regards to legislation passed by the Parmiament that gives the Minister the powers to direct that “ASQA to pause the acceptance and processing of new RTO applications”. Ministers’ Media Release Date: 21 February 2024. This means that there is a risk that your RTO application may be prevented from being submitted which is outside our control. In proceeding with this service, you accept this risk and acknowledge that Newbery Consulting have no control over changes to government policy that negativity impacts your chances or opportunity of RTO Registration. If the Minister were to exercise this power, this would mean that your application would not be submitted and your consulting support in this service will expire. You need to accept that this is a real possibility and clause 13.3 and sub-clause 13.3.11 of these terms and conditions will be enforced. Requests for a refund under these circumstances will be refused. We are providing this information so that you are well informed about this. If you proceed with this service, you accept this risk. This note was included into these terms and conditions on the 9th February 2024 when the ligislation was introduced to Parliament and updated on the 22nd February 2024 the day after the legislation was passed by the Parliament.
14. Refusal, Cancellation or Cessation of Service
14.1 We reserve the right to refuse, cancel or cease the service for any reason we deem appropriate. The following are some examples of why we may refuse, cancel or cease the service:
14.1.1 Rude, offensive or abusive behaviour. Rude, offensive or abusive behaviour toward Newbery Consulting staff by you or any representative from your organisation, will not be tolerated and will result in immediate cancellation of the service .
14.1.2 Breach of terms and conditions. Breach or failure to comply with these terms and conditions or any other terms and conditions of related products and services will result in immediate cancellation of service .
14.1.3 Failure to follow advice or use the documents we supply. Failure by the client to follow the advice provided by Newbery Consulting will not be tolerated particularly where the actions of the client are likely to result in non-compliant arrangements being presented to the initial registration assessment. This includes failure to use the documents and templates we supply on which we have great confidence and rely on for the efficient delivery of this service. Failure to follow the advice provided by Newbery Consulting will result in the cancellation of the service after fair warning has been provided.
14.1.4 Failure to protect the interests of students and consumers. Any action taken, or arrangement implemented by the client that Newbery Consulting consider fails to protect the interests of prospective learners of the client or consumers will result in the cancellation of the service after fair warning has been provided.
14.1.5 Non-genuine training provider. If Newbery Consulting bocome aware during the delivery of this service that the client is a non-genuine training provider and is seeking to register the RTO for other reasons such as to sell as a business or to meet a procurement requirement in a competitive tender or contract application, this will be seen as a breach of trust and a breach of these terms and conditions and will result in immediate cancellation of the service.
15. Confidentiality
15.1 Newbery Consulting agrees that any information received by it during the provision of services relating to your organisation, operational or commercial affairs is “Confidential Information” shall be treated by Newbery Consulting in strict confidence and will not be revealed to any other persons or organisation unless compelled to do so under the law.
15.2 Newbery Consulting acknowledge that the Confidential Information that is held or owned by the Client is valuable proprietary information and that harm may be caused to the Client by its disclosure.
15.3 Newbery Consulting agrees to hold in strictest confidence the Confidential Information and not to divulge, provide or otherwise make available or to allow any of its employees, agents, sub-contractors or representatives to divulge, provide or otherwise to make available to any person in whole or in part, any of the Confidential Information other than:
15.3.1 with the prior written consent of the Client;
15.3.2 by operation of law provided that all available legal steps have been taken to prevent or limit such disclosure;
15.3.3 to use and to ensure that its employees, agents, sub-contractors and representatives use the Confidential Information solely for the purpose of this agreement.
15.3.4 to take or cause to be taken such precautions as may be reasonably required by the Client to maintain the secrecy and confidentiality of the Confidential Information and to prevent its disclosure.
15.4 Newbery Consulting may be compelled under s 62 of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (Cth) to provide information to the National VET Regulator by issuing a written notice to Newbery Consulting to give information and documents. It is an offence under s 64 of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 to not provide information and documents when requested to do so. Newbery Consulting will comply with written notices issued by the National VET Regulator.
16. Waiver of Liability
16.1 By accessing the RTO Registration products and services, the Client waives and releases Newbery Consulting to the full extent permitted by law from any and all claims relating to the usage of products, the provision of advice or any occurance outside of our control and under no circumstances whatsoever shall Newbery Consulting be deemed to assume any responsibility for or obligation or duty with respect to any part or all of the Client’s business.
17. Acknowledgement of Terms and Conditions
17.1 By purchasing the RTO Registration package you acknowledge that you on behalf of your business entity understand and agreed to these Terms and Conditions. These Terms and Conditions should be read in-conjunction with the other related Terms and Conditions. Acknowledgement of these Terms and Conditions implies acknowledgement of all related Terms and Conditions.
Published – 1st January 2020
Revised – 1st July 2022 – To reflect price increase and enhanced confidentiality terms.
Revised – 1st January 2024 – To reflect price increase.
Revised – 9th February 2024 – To include Note in respect of the clause 13.3.11.
Revised – 22nd February 2024 – To update the Note in respect of clause 13.3.11.
Copyright © Newbery Consulting 2022. All rights reserved.
RTO Application Evidence Requirements
RTO Application Evidence Requirements
The following reflects the application evidence requirements for initial registration as a domestic RTO with the National VET Regulator (ASQA) from 1st July 2018:
The application for initial registration requires specific evidence to be uploaded to accompany the application. All of this evidence must be fully prepared and compliant before it is submitted to the regulator. The regulator will undertake a desk audit on this evidence and will determine how they progress with the application based on this initial desk audit.
It is critically important that this evidence is fully developed and compliant. The following evidence must be submitted with the application:
- Entity records including:
- ASIC company certificate
- ASIC company historical extract
- ABN certificate
- ASIC business name registration
- ASIC company certificate of parent entities
- ASIC company historical extract of parent entities
- Financial Viability Risk Assessment (click) with the following supporting documents:
- business plan which provides the following information:
- a company overview, description of the business including funding sources, target market, identified student cohort, key clients and industries, proposed courses, operating locations, equipment and facilities
- business goals and objectives
- strategic long-term direction of the organisation as a registered training organisation
- market analysis of industry including locations, methods of delivery, industry demand and competitor analysis
- analysis of business strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats
- information about the organisation structure including position titles and names of staff members
- Proposed RTO Details, including:
- entity details
- type of training organisation
- group structure
- key personnel
- delivery sites
- fee payment protection arrangements
- status of current superannuation liabilities
- status of PAYG/GST liabilities
- basis of accounting
- insurance coverage including public liability and WorkCover
- unresolved legal disputes
- contingent liabilities in existence
- contingent access to funding options
- financial projections for at least the next 24 months, including:
- profit and loss forecast
- balance sheets
- cash flow forecasts
- bank account, debtors and creditors
- forecast student numbers and course fees
- forecast operating expenses
- Financial viability supporting evidence requirements:
- Business Plan/Strategic Plan
- Audited financial statements (last two years)
- Current management accounts
- Bank statements – within 1 week of application lodgement
- Bank statements – as at most recent financial year end
- Bank statements – as at most recent month end
- Bank reconciliations – as at most recent financial year end
- Bank reconciliations – as at most recent month end
- ATO Portal – integrated client account
- ATO repayment plan
- Aged debtors ledger- as at most recent financial year end
- Aged debtors ledger- as at most recent month end
- Aged creditors ledger- as at most recent financial year end
- Aged creditors ledger- as at most recent month end
- Deed of guarantees or other legally enforceable instruments
- Signed nominated accountants certificate
- business plan which provides the following information:
- ASQA Self-assessment for Registration as a Registered Training Organisation (click) including the following supporting evidence:
- the planned course brochures that will be used for the purposes of advertising and marketing for each training product
- the planned learner handbook that will be supplied to prospective learners prior to their enrolment to inform them about their rights and obligations
- the planned fee schedule that will be supplied to prospective learners prior to their enrolment to inform them about fees and related charges
- customised learner enrolment application and declaration/agreement
- customised enrolment interview form to determine the learners training and learner support requirements
- policy and procedure relating to:
- marketing and advertising
- learner enrolment
- fees and payments and refunds
- learner support services
- core skills assessment
- competency assessment
- issuing AQF certificates
- details of staff members or external providers who are nominated to provide support services
- third party agreements with external support service providers (if applicable)
- training and assessment strategies for each training product being applied for. Each training and assessment strategy must provide evidence about:
- the training product code and title
- describe the target cohort / learner
- entry requirements
- nominated units of competency
- pre-requisites or co-requisites
- sequence of unit delivery
- details of the amount of training
- statement of rationale justifying the amount of training
- strategies to vary the amount of training for learners with different needs
- work placement arrangements / requirements
- planned assessment activities, methods and events
- plan assessment resources
- other resources required for training and assessment including learning resources, human resources and physical resources such as equipment
- arrangements for ongoing review and continuous improvement of the training and assessment strategy
- arrangements for work placement and structured workplace learning
- detailed course program that identifies the planned learning and assessment activities and shows how these are sequenced and structured over the course duration
- details of class scheduling arrangements including timetabling documents for each delivery location
- a list of the developed learning resources that support the delivery of each unit of competency including learning references, learner guides, presentation tools, practical activity instructions, et cetera
- details of workplace resources where these are being accessed within a workplace including all facilities and equipment relating to the range of planned work of the learner
- details of work placement arrangements including templates to be used for determining the suitability of workplace, supervision requirements, minimum equipment and resource requirements, scope of work requirements, et cetera
- evidence of ownership, lease or access agreement for any planned delivery sites where training and assessment will be conducted
- contractual agreement with an employer where training and assessment is to be conducted at specific employer premises
- evidence of Local Government approval to utilise planned delivery sites for the purposes of vocational education and training. This may come in the form of an occupation certificate or specific access and approval letter provided by Council. For a CRICOS application 9B building certification is recommended
- Details of planned student and teacher ratios
- floorplans of proposed delivery sites showing areas to be used for classroom training, practical application and skill development, amenities and breakout areas
- evidence of employment agreements or contracts with all planned trainers and assessors including employees and contractors
- evidence of industry engagement that has been undertaken to inform the relevance of the training and assessment being provided. This needs to include the details of the industry representatives that were engaged with, the lessons learned and evidence of how these lessons were taken into account in the development of the course.
- When applying for individual units of competency, the complete assessment tools and resources for each unit of competency.
- When appying for a qualification, a list of the complete assessment tools and resources for each unit of competency.
- Evidence that verifies the competency and currency of nominated trainers, including a certified and scanned copy of relevant vocational qualifications and certificates, training and assessment qualification, certificates relating to recent professional development, evidence of industry currency and ongoing practice
- example AQF certificate including both a qualification certificate and example statement of attainment
- evidence of arrangements to collect and report AVETMISS data and quality indicator survey data
- Fit and Proper Person Requirements Declaration (click) from the following persons:
- Executive officer/s. An executive officer is any person who takes part in the management of your organisation or is partly responsible for the management or decision making for your organisation.
- Examples of ‘executive officers’ that must complete a Fit and proper person declaration include:
- a director of the company
- a secretary of the company
- a chief executive of the RTO
- a principal executive officer of the CRICOS provider
- Examples of ‘executive officers’ where ASQA may request completion of a FPP declaration include:
- a compliance manager
- a marketing manager
- a training manager
- Examples of ‘executive officers’ that must complete a Fit and proper person declaration include:
- High managerial agent/s. A high managerial agent is an employee or agent who represents your organisation in relation to the business of providing courses.
- Examples of ‘high managerial agents’ where ASQA may request completion of a FPP declaration include:
- a consultant or employee with an ongoing role related to regulatory compliance
- a consultant or employee who represents your organisation at audit
- an agent who recruits students on behalf of your organisation, or
- people employed by third-party organisations who fulfil any of the roles described above on behalf of your organisation
- people employed by third-party organisations who provide training and/or assessment on behalf of your organisation.
- Examples of ‘high managerial agents’ where ASQA may request completion of a FPP declaration include:
- Owners and executive officers. The term ‘owner and executive officer’ includes:
- any person who owns 15 per cent or more of your organisation
- any person who is entitled to receive 15 per cent or more of dividends paid by your organisation
- any trustees of a trust associated with the organisation
- relevant persons in associated entities.
- Executive officer/s. An executive officer is any person who takes part in the management of your organisation or is partly responsible for the management or decision making for your organisation.
- CRICOS Providers. The following additional evidence is required in support of an application for approval as a CRICOS provider:
- Documented process and policy to be implemented for assessing suitability of students prior to enrolment
- International student pre-enrolment information, such as a student handbook
- International student fee and refund information
- International student Letter of Offer template
- International student orientation program
- International student support arrangements
- International student welfare support
- International student critical incident procedure
- Mechanisms for managing and monitoring course progress
- Copies of written agreements with education agents
- mechanisms for managing the welfare of and accommodation for students aged under 18
On the 14th Dec 2018, the National VET Regulator released the following General Direction which inform the requirement for this evidence requirement:
Good training,
Joe Newbery
Published: 14th January 2019
Copyright © Newbery Consulting 2018. All rights reserved.
VET News – 1st August 2018
|
Direct Debit – Terms and Conditions
Direct Debit – Terms and Conditions
This policy outlines our commitment to you as a Direct Debit customer and your rights and responsibilities throughout the Direct Debit process.
This policy applies to you where you enter into a Direct Debit arrangement with us in connection with the sale of products and services supplied by Newbery Consulting. This Direct Debit agreement supersedes any prior payment arrangements you have entered into with us for products and services. However, it does not affect or supersede any prior payment arrangements you have entered into with us for other products and services.
Your Authorisation
You authorise:
1. Newbery Consulting to arrange for funds to be debited:
a. From your nominated account (the details of which you provided to us over the phone, or in the Direct Debit application form provided to you by us),
b. For an amount that is determined in accordance with the confirmation letter you received with this Direct Debit agreement,
2. Newbery Consulting to verify the details of your nominated account with your financial institution.
3. Your financial institution to release information allowing Newbery Consulting to verify your nominated account.
4. This authorisation is to remain in force in accordance with the terms described in this Direct Debit agreement.
Our commitment
5. We’ll provide you with at least 14 days prior notice if we change any terms of this agreement. We may also cancel your Direct Debit by notice to you.
6. We’ll keep all information about your nominated bank account private and confidential, only to be disclosed at your request or that of your financial institution in connection with a claim made about an alleged incorrect or wrongful debit.
7. We’ll deduct payment, to a maximum of the amount due on your account at the due date of your Direct Debit unless otherwise agreed with you. Where the Direct Debit due date falls on a non-working day or a national public holiday, we’ll deduct the payment amount on the next business day.
8. If you have an amount outstanding on your account on the date the Direct Debit starts, we’ll deduct that amount on or after that date, which may be before the first due date of your Direct Debit, unless otherwise agreed with you.
9. We’ll stop your Direct Debit in respect of your relevant product:
a. After your final bill has been paid if you stop being our customer for that product; or
b. If we stop being your retailer for that product due to the operation of a retailer of last resort scheme and you and your financial institution will be notified promptly.
Your commitment
10. You must ensure:
a. Your account information supplied to us is correct by checking it against a recent statement from your financial institution.
b. Your nominated account can accept Direct Debits; and
c. Sufficient funds are available in the nominated account to meet a payment on its due date.
11. Where you consider a payment has been initiated incorrectly, or there is a discrepancy in a payment amount, please contact us immediately so we can address your query.
12. You must advise us if:
a. Your nominated account is transferred, closed or the Direct Debit is cancelled. You must do so as soon as you become aware of this change; or
b. You wish to change your bank account or personal details. To take effect for your next Direct Debit payment, we must receive your request at least 10 business days before that Direct Debit due date.
13. You may stop a Direct Debit payment by notifying us at least 10 business days before your next Direct Debit due date. If you’d like to change the amount and/or frequency of your Direct Debit payments call us to discuss your options.
14. You may terminate your Direct Debit agreement at any time by notifying us or your financial institution at least 4 business days before your next Direct Debit due date.
15. If you notify us that you have cancelled this Direct Debit agreement, we’ll use our best endeavours to notify your financial institution as soon as we can after the cancellation.
16. If your Direct Debit agreement is cancelled (whether by you, us or your financial institution) you must pay all amounts due on your account on the due dates for those amounts using a suitable alternate payment method (you can find other available payment methods on your bill).
Fees and Charges
17. We’ll notify you of any return unpaid transactions and any applicable fee (plus GST) will be added to your account. If your nominated bank account has insufficient funds to cover a payment you are responsible for any costs we incur as a consequence of covering payment.
18. If you have any enquiries regarding stops, cancellations, or require payment assistance, you can contact us using the following contact details:
Email: enquiries@newberyconsulting.com.au
Telephone: (02) 8005 8029.
Acknowledgement of Terms and Conditions
These terms and conditions should be read in-conjunction with the other related terms and conditions. Acknowledgement of these terms and conditions implies acknowledgement of all related terms and conditions.
Updated – 30th July 2018
Copyright © Newbery Consulting 2018. All rights reserved.
Product Purchase – Terms and Conditions
Product Purchase – Terms and Conditions
Cancellation of a transaction
Where a consumer has paid for a product and that product has not yet been supplied, the consumer is entitled to cancel their transaction and receive a full refund of the product payment made to Newbery Consulting. Requests to cancel a transaction must be made within one hour from submitting a product purchase to Newbery Consulting.
Requests to cancel a transaction can be made via email to: enquiries@newberyconsulting.com.au
Delivery Timeframe for Products and Services
All services will be delivered in a timeframe which is specified on each service page description on this website. All products will be supplied via email within 24 hours of receiving the payment for products into the bank account of Newbery Consulting.
Product Licence Conditions
The licensee is entitled to print, copy or amend this publication to aid the implementation and application of the publication.
The licensee is not entitled to distribute or communicate this material, except where such communication occurs in the context of informing specified third parties (Note 1) of the licensee’s operations, policies and procedures. Material distributed for these purposes must be in an non-amendable format (such as a locked PDF). The licensee is not entitled to communicate or publish the material over the internet or in an unrestricted public domain where it is likely to be freely distributed and copied.
The licensee is not entitled to distribute or communicate this material either as a product or a service. The licensee is not entitled to charge a fee for distribution or communication of this material. The licensee must take all care to prevent the distribution of this publication to other parties who may not respect the requirements of this licence or the copyright.
This license does not extend to any subsidiaries, ventures or parent organisations of the licensee. This licence is not transferrable to any other entity.
The licensor warrants that they are entitled to grant licence and that a licensee’s exercise of the licence will not infringe third party rights.
Product Disclaimer
Newbery Consulting makes product material available on the understanding that users exercise their own skill and care with respect to its use. Before relying on the material in any important matter, users should carefully evaluate the accuracy, completeness and relevance of the information for their purposes and should obtain appropriate professional advice relevant to their particular circumstances.
The material within this publication may include views or recommendations of third parties which do not necessarily reflect the views of Newbery Consulting or indicate its commitment to a particular course of action.
Links to other publications have been inserted for convenience and do not constitute endorsement of material within those publications or any associated organisation, product or service. These external information sources are outside our control. It is the responsibility of users to make their own decisions about the accuracy, currency and reliability of the information at those sites.
By accessing information through this publication the licensee waives and releases Newbery Consulting to the full extent permitted by law from any and all claims relating to the usage of the material made available through this publication. In no circumstances shall Newbery Consulting be liable for any incident or consequential damages resulting from the use of this material.
Acknowledgement of Terms and Conditions
These terms and conditions should be read in-conjunction with the other related terms and conditions. Acknowledgement of these terms and conditions implies acknowledgement of all related terms and conditions.
Updated – 30th July 2018
Copyright © Newbery Consulting 2018. All rights reserved.
Note 1: Specified third parties are VET registering or regulatory authorities when the RTO is required to demonstrate its policy and procedural approach to operations in support of their compliance with quality standards or continued registration.The policies and forms are customised for compliance and registration with ASQA.
General Refund – Terms and Conditions
General Refund – Terms and Conditions
Newbery Consulting complies with the requirements of the Consumer Guarantees under the Australian Consumer Law (click here). Consumer guarantees do not apply if the consumer:
- Got what they asked for but simply changed their mind, found it cheaper somewhere else, decided they did not like the purchase or had no use for it.
- Misused a product in any way that caused the problem.
- Knew of or were made aware of the faults before you bought the product.
- Asked for a service to be done in a certain way against the advice of the business or were unclear about what you wanted.
Clients are advised to check any specific refund terms that may apply to the specific product or service they are acquiring or have acquired.
All services must be utilised within 12 months from the date of purchase or the value of the unused service (or any portion thereof) is forfeited and not refundable. Newbery Consulting is not liable where the service was not utilised due to any circumstances.
All requests for refund can be made via the following email address: enquiries@newberyconsulting.com.au
Acknowledgement of Terms and Conditions
These terms and conditions should be read in-conjunction with the other related terms and conditions. Acknowledgement of these terms and conditions implies acknowledgement of all related terms and conditions.
Updated – 30th July 2018
Copyright © Newbery Consulting 2018. All rights reserved.
Webinar – Terms and Conditions
Webinar – Terms and Conditions
Use of Information and Materials – Webinars
Persons who register for and view webinar sessions with Newbery Consulting will view information and receive electronic materials that are owned by Newbery Consulting. These materials are subject to copyright protection and have been supplied for the purpose of individual professional development delivered as a paid webinar. Under no circumstances may this material be copied, reproduced, rebroadcast without the permission of Newbery Consulting.
Under no circumstances are recordings of webinars to be distributed or made available for public viewing. These have been supplied on the basis of individual professional development only for individuals who have paid a webinar registration fee. If clients would like to arrange such public viewing, they should contact Newbery Consulting to discuss this possibility under a fee arrangement.
Note, by registering for a webinar session individually or as a group, you give permission to be automatically added to the Newbery Consulting email group for future webinar releases and updates.
Refund Policy – Webinars
Persons who have registered and paid for attendance at a webinar are entitled to a refund where they give notice of their request to withdraw from viewing webinar and where the webinar purchased has not already been viewed.
Note, that Newbery Consulting customer relationship software monitors if and when a webinar is viewed by the registrant. Notice of requests to withdraw from an event must be made in writing. All requests can be made via email to enquiries@newberyconsulting.com.au.
Webinar Access
When a registration has been purchased to a webinar, the participant will receive an email with a link and instructions on how to access the webinar. This involves going to the following page Webinar Login and entering the first name, last name and email address of the person who was registered. The registered person will have 7 days from the time the webinar registration was purchased to login and access the webinar. The viewing portal is available 24/7. After the 7 day period has expired, access to the webinar using the registration details will be closed. If a person is prevented from viewing the webinar in that time, they may contact Newbery Consulting and request an access extension. An extension will usually be granted for an additional 2 days. To request an extension, please contact Newbery Consulting via the following email address: enquiries@newberyconsulting.com.au
Webinar Professional Development Certificate
Within 24 hours of a registered participant viewing the webinar, a certificate of professional development will be issued to the participant via the email address that was used for the registration. This certificate will identify the registered participant by their name used to register for the webinar. Only one certificate can be issued for each webinar registration.
Group Webinar Registrations
Registrations may be purchased for multiple participants by adding the selected webinar to the basket and then adjusting the number of webinar registrations at the Checkout prior to making payment. The details provided in the checkout and payment process will be used to send the group webinar registration out vie email including a unique code for the registration. The person receiving this registration will be provided a link to the following registration page: Webinar Registration. To register each participant, the person’s first name, last name, email address and unique registration code must be entered. Each participant will then receive their own registration email and have the next 7 days to access the webinar. The remaining credits on the group registration will be shown after each registration is entered.
Video Streaming and Internet Speed
Newbery Consulting webinars are supplied on a video streaming basis only. The webinars cannot be downloaded to your device or computer. The webinar can be viewed on any device. Newbery Consulting would recommend using at least a tablet, laptop or desktop computer. The webinar displays in a resolution of 640 x 480 but will reduce for a smaller screen size such as a smart phone. The smaller the screen size may result in the participant not being able to read the slide content clearly.
In order to obtain the required video streaming quality, Newbery Consulting recommend a minimum internet speed of 5 Mb/s. Internet speed less than this may result in the video quality being impaired with a blurry or grainy image. You may also experience interruptions and buffering whilst the webinar is streaming. On average, each webinar will use approximately 120 Mb of data. It is the responsibility of the person registering for a webinar to first check the suitability of the device for viewing the webinar, the available internet speed and the available amount of data. Your local internet speed can be checked at the following site: Speed Test
Acknowledgement of Terms and Conditions
These terms and conditions should be read in-conjunction with the other related terms and conditions. Acknowledgement of these terms and conditions implies acknowledgement of all related terms and conditions.
Updated – 30th July 2018
Copyright © Newbery Consulting 2018. All rights reserved.
Payment – Terms and Conditions
Payment – Terms and Conditions
Newbery Consulting has a strict 14 day payment terms. If we have issued you with an invoice, the payment is due 14 days from the issuing date of the invoice. Payments can be made to Newbery Consulting via bank transfer or via credit card on Visa or Mastercard.
If you are having difficulty meeting this payment timeline, you must contact us immediately and request a payment extension. An extension will usually be given for an additional 14 days. I don’t give a rats arse what your corporate payment terms say. These are our payment terms and if you engage us to provide a service, you agree to pay our invoice on or before the due date.
This next bit is super important, so read carefully!
If any invoice is not paid in full from 29 days after the invoice was issued, Newbery Consulting will be entitled to charge you 1% (daily) interest on the amount owing for each day the amount remains unpaid. This interest is compounding so the 1% charged on any day will be based on the compounding amount calculated on the original outstanding amount plus an additional 1% for every day the amount remains unpaid. By “unpaid” we mean the date that payments are received into our account. In agreeing to these terms and conditions, you agree to pay this late payment interest when Newbery Consulting issue you with a new invoice with the interest charges itemised. Newbery Consulting will re-issue the invoice every 7 days after the 29 day late payment allowance has expired. We are dead serious about this. We do our best to provide a great service and we expect to be paid for those services on-time.
The following is an example of 1% compound daily interest over 20 days when the payment is past the 29 day late payment allowance:
Newbery Consulting will initiate debt recovery where an invoice has not been paid for more that 90 days from the date the invoice was issued. The recovery of debt will include the initial amount owing and the total interest that has accumulated on the unpaid amount. In the above scenario, at 60 days the total amount owing would have grown to $9083.50. Please note that, interest will continue to be charged during debt recovery action. Newbery Consulting will utilise the services of Debt Recoveries Australia.
Acknowledgement of Terms and Conditions
These terms and conditions should be read in-conjunction with the other related terms and conditions. Acknowledgement of these terms and conditions implies acknowledgement of all related terms and conditions.
Updated – 30th July 2018
Copyright © Newbery Consulting 2018. All rights reserved.
Website – Terms and Conditions
Website – Terms and Conditions
All Rights Reserved © Newbery Consulting
Copyright in the pages and in the screens displaying the pages, and in the information and material therein and in their arrangement, is owned by Newbery Consulting unless otherwise indicated.
Use of Information and Materials
The information and materials contained in these pages (the website), and the terms, conditions, and descriptions that appear, are subject to change. Unauthorised use of Newbery Consulting web sites and systems including but not limited to unauthorised entry into Newbery Consulting systems, misuse of passwords, or misuse of any information posted on a site is strictly prohibited.
Links
This site may contain links to websites controlled or offered by third parties (non-affiliates of Newbery Consulting). Newbery Consulting hereby disclaims liability for, any information, materials, products or services posted or offered at any of the third party sites linked to this website.
Newbery Consulting does not endorse or recommend any products or services offered or information contained at third party websites, nor is Newbery Consulting liable for any failure of products or services offered or advertised at any of the third party sites. Such third parties may have a privacy policy different from that of Newbery Consulting and the third party website may provide less security than the Newbery Consulting site.
No Warranty
The information and materials contained in this site, including text, graphics, links or other items are provided “”as is””, “”as available””. Newbery Consulting does not warrant the accuracy, adequacy or completeness of this information and materials and expressly disclaims liability for errors or omissions in this information and materials. No warranty of any kind, implied, expressed or statutory including but not limited to the warranties of non-infringement of third party rights, title, merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose and freedom from computer virus, is given in conjunction with the information and materials.
Limitation of Liability
In no event will Newbery Consulting be liable for any damages, including without limitation direct or indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages, losses or expenses arising in connection with this website or any linked site or use thereof or inability to use by any party, or in connection with any failure of performance, error, omission, interruption, defect, delay in operation or transmission, computer virus or line or system failure, even if Newbery Consulting, or representatives thereof, are advised of the possibility of such damages, losses or expenses.
Submissions
All information submitted to Newbery Consulting via this site shall be deemed and remain the property of Newbery Consulting and Newbery Consulting shall be free to use, for any purpose, any idea, concepts, know-how or techniques contained in information a visitor to this site provides Newbery Consulting through this site. Newbery Consulting shall not be subject to any obligations of confidentiality regarding submitted information except as agreed by the Newbery Consulting entity having the direct customer relationship or as otherwise specifically agreed or required by law. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as limiting or reducing Newbery Consulting’s responsibilities and obligations to customers in accordance with the Newbery Consulting Privacy Policy or Australian Privacy laws.
Limits of Warranty and Liability
To the extent permitted by law, Newbery Consulting provide no warranty and make no claim in relation to our performance, the performance of our consultants or provide any guarantee for the outcome of services we provide. By accessing Newbery Consulting services, you waive and release Newbery Consulting to the full extent permitted by law from any and all claims relating to the usage of our consulting services. In no circumstances, shall Newbery Consulting be liable for any incident, consequential damages or loss resulting from the use of our consulting services.
Availability & Additional Terms
This site is not intended for distribution to, or use by, any person or entity in any jurisdiction or country where such distribution or use would be contrary to local law or regulation. Sections or pages on this site may contain separate terms and conditions, which are in addition to these terms and conditions. In the event of a conflict, the additional terms and conditions will govern for those sections or pages.
Acknowledgement of Terms and Conditions
These terms and conditions should be read in-conjunction with the other related terms and conditions. Acknowledgement of these terms and conditions implies acknowledgement of all related terms and conditions.
Updated – 30th July 2018
Copyright © Newbery Consulting 2018. All rights reserved.
VET News – 11th July 2018
|
Identifying “Educational and Support Services” as Third-Party Arrangements
Identifying “Educational and Support Services” as Third-Party Arrangements
The national regulator for VET released a fact sheet in September 2016 that provides guidance to RTOs about their responsibilities in managing third-party arrangements (click). Generally, this fact sheet is quite helpful and informative for RTO’s. There is, however, information in the fact sheet that does create uncertainty in regard to defining “educational and support services” as a third-party arrangement.
Just by way of a brief introduction, the Standards for Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) 2015 define a third-party as “any party that provides services on behalf of the RTO but does not include a contract of employment between an RTO and its employee”. The fact sheet then defines services as “training, assessment, related educational and support services and/or any activities related to the recruitment of prospective learners”. Now, the aspect relating to training and assessment and recruit services is quite straightforward. Defining “related educational and support services” is more complex.
The national regulator provides a list of education support services that “may” constitute a third-party arrangement. These include the following:
- pre-enrolment materials
- study support and study skills programs
- language, literacy and numeracy (LLN) programs or referrals to these programs
- equipment, resources and/or programs to increase access for learners with disabilities and other learners
- learning resource centres
- flexible scheduling and delivery of training and assessment
- learning materials in alternative formats, for example, in large print
- learning and assessment programs contextualised to the workplace
- any other services that the RTO considers necessary to support learners to achieve competency
Before we progress, just consider the above list in the context of your RTO and ask yourself are there any support services that you engage that could fall into the above service descriptions?
In early 2018, we started to see a trend in client enquiries in respect of meeting their obligations to notify the national regulator of third-party arrangements as required under the standards and clause 8.3. This trend included clients seeking advice about determining what education support services constitute a third-party arrangement. A number of requests that clients made to the national regulator often resulted in just been referred back to the fact sheet rather than actually providing any guidance which was the purpose of the request. In June 2018, Newbery Consulting wrote to the national regulator and requested more detailed guidance on what it considered to be a third-party arrangement under the banner of “education support services”. Our experience is that the national regulator will only respond effectively to very specific questions and so a number of scenario situations relating to education support services were put to the national regulator to determine if they would consider these to be third-party arrangements.
Of course, the implication of these arrangements being considered as third-party arrangements is considerable. This means that each arrangement needs to be supported by a formal written agreement which imposes requirements on the third party to cooperate with the national regulator and to submit to monitoring arrangements by the RTO. It also requires that the RTO to notify the specifics of each third-party arrangement to the national regulator before the service is commenced and when the arrangement is concluded. In short, it imposes a considerable layer of bureaucracy and administration onto the RTO and third-party service providers for what most would consider to be service arrangements that are fundamental to most RTO operations.
The following is an edited version of the questions put to the national regulator and their response with some additional commentary:
Pre-enrolment materials
Question: A client outsource to a service provider the provision of pre-enrolment material (learning material or otherwise) to learners prior to their attendance at the course. Do you consider this to be a third-party arrangement?
Response: It depends on the specific nature of the engagement with learners. If, for example, a print-on-demand company was simply positing out learning materials to learners, this would not constitute a third-party arrangement. If the activity involved distributing material to a prospective learner to the extent this would be considered part of the recruitment process, then yes, this would constitute a third-party arrangement.
Commentary: The national regulator has specifically linked the supply of pre-enrolment material to learners (as a support service) to a recruitment services. The distinction here is if the supply of the pre-enrolment material was conducted by the third-party to collect the enrolment details of the learner and supply these as an enrolment to the RTO, this would constitute a third-party arrangement. If the third-party was simply distributing pre-enrolment material as a form of marketing or pre-course preparation not connected to any “recruitment” process then this should not be considered as a third-party arrangement. That’s pretty clear. Great!
Study support and study skills programs
Question: A client delivers VET in school’s programs where teachers at the school collaborate with teachers from the provider to provide study support and study skills to learners. Do you consider this to be a third-party arrangement?
Response: Yes, this is clearly a third party arrangement as described in the Standards for RTOs.
Commentary: This advice potentially has considerable implications for RTO’s. If you remove the context of the question regarding “VET in schools” it potentially means that any third party collaborating with an RTO (to provide learning or study support) could be defined as a third-party arrangement. But, the fact sheet specifically says that “a workplace supervisor who contributes to evidence collection or training” is not included in the definition of a third-party.
The main distinction between these two situations seems to be the competency of the teachers collaborating with the RTO. Because the RTO is relying on the services being provided by the school (by qualified teachers), then it is considered to be outsourcing some of its responsibility as the RTO to fully support the learner. This reliance tips the situation into a third-party arrangement and the regulator wants to know about it. The line between the VET in schools scenario and some enterprise/RTO collaborations can be very fine. A scenario where the enterprise based “workplace trainer” who is qualified in training and assessment and is working with the RTO to deliver and assess in the workplace could also fall into the same classification as the above VET in schools program. Many resource and civil construction courses are delivered exactly like this.
Language, literacy and numeracy (LLN) programs or referrals to these programs
Question: A client engages a local community college who have educational specialists that specialise in the delivery of language literacy and numeracy programs, to provide support to learners identified during the learner’s enrolment as requiring support. Do you consider this to be a third-party arrangement?
Response: Yes, this is clearly a third-party arrangement as described in the Standards for RTOs.
Commentary: This advice is very clear. This means that any arrangement that an RTO has to refer a learner to a specialist provider in regard to improving their foundation skills or language, literacy and numeracy skills should be considered to be third-party arrangement, notified to the national regulator and supported by a third party written agreement. This situation would apply to the majority of RTO’s. Most of these types of specialist services are supplied by public RTO’s who technically will now need to enter into a third-party arrangement with a private provider and be subject to monitoring by the private provider. You can see the implications of this in regard to the introduction of significant bureaucracy and administration for services that are simply fundamental to the good operation of an RTO and the support of learners. It potentially puts barriers in the way of this type of support occurring not to mention that many of the service providers in this space are unlikely to agree to entering into a formal written third-party agreement. I think the national regulator will need to reconsider its definition, however, based on the very clear advice it has provided, all RTO’s should be reviewing their arrangements with LLN support service providers to establish a written third-party agreement and notify the national regulator.
Equipment, resources and/or programs to increase access for learners with disabilities and other learners
Because this category of support service is so broad, a number of questions were put to the national regulator to identify the scope of how this category of support services should be interpreted.
Question: A client leases the clubhouse of the local rugby club where there are two commercial coffee machines to deliver training in serving espresso coffee. Do you consider this to be a third-party arrangement?
Response: No, this would not be a third-party arrangement.
Question: A client purchases commercial learning and assessment resources from a business to support the delivery of a national training product. Do you consider this to be a third-party arrangement?
Response: No, this would not be a third-party arrangement.
Question: A client enters into an agreement with a local quarry to access plant equipment and utilise the quarry environment and material for the conduct of civil construction training. Do you consider this to be a third-party arrangement?
Response: No, this would not be a third-party arrangement.
Commentary: The national regulator was also requested to provide an example of what it would consider to be a third-party arrangement in this category but did not respond to this request. So, it appears that if the RTO accesses facilities or equipment of another business or organisation to support the delivery of training and assessment then this should not be considered as a third-party arrangement. It also seems that where an RTO accesses (through purchase or some other type of arrangement) learning and assessment material from a third-party that this should also not be considered as a third-party arrangement. Lucky, can you imagine implications of that! The difficulty that I have with this category is not so much about the aspect relating to disability equipment and resources, it is the inclusion of “other learners” which is troubling. It would be great if the national regulator could provide some examples of situations that it considers would be included in this category in relation to other learners.
Learning resource centres
Question: A client enters into an agreement with a local library for its learners to utilise study pods and access computers and textbooks to support their learning. Do you consider this to be a third-party arrangement?
Response: No, this would not be a third-party arrangement.
Commentary: The national regulator was also requested to provide an example of what it would consider to be a third-party arrangement in this category but did not respond to this request. If the above example relating to the agreement with the library is not considered to be a third-party service, then it is difficult to identify what would be considered as a third-party service under this category. In the public domain, a learning resource centre is defined as a “facility staffed by specialist containing information sources”. Sounds like a library to me! Anyway, it is good to have that clarification, but we are no wiser what a “Learning Resouce Centre” is.
Flexible scheduling and delivery of training and assessment
Question: I really have no idea what was intended by this item in the list. Can you please provide an example of what this may constitute as a third-party arrangement?
Commentary: The national regulator did not respond to this question. I really cannot think of a valid example or situation where a third party may provide flexible scheduling and delivery of training and assessment in the context of education support services. It is telling that the national regulator itself cannot define what an education support service under this category might include.
Learning materials in alternative formats, for example, in large print
Question: A client engages an interpreter service to convert learning text to another language or as another example engages an AUSLAN support person to support the candidate with a hearing disability. Do you consider this to be a third-party arrangement?
Response: This is two different scenarios. A person engaged in translating learning materials is not a third-party arrangement. A person providing AUSLAN support to a learner would be a third-party arrangement.
Commentary: Unfortunately, I feel more confused about this category than before I asked the question. So, if we organise a service provider to supply learning materials in an alternative format such as large print for those with a sight impairment, this is considered a third-party arrangement. Conversely, if we engage a business to convert text to an alternative language but do not change the size of the font, then this should not be considered as a third-party arrangement. Seriously, what a contradiction!
But, the one piece of clarity to come out of this response is if you engage an AUSLAN support person or any service to support a learner with disability, then this should be considered as a third-party arrangement. I personally think this is crazy. It technically means that a minimum of 30 days prior to engaging this service you need to establish a written agreement that includes all the necessary clauses and notify the national regulator. Within 30 days of the agreement of this service coming to an end, you also need to notify the regulator. Just crazy stuff. Bureaucracy gone mad!
It brings to mind a situation a client of ours who delivers forklift training had recently where they had a learner make an enquiry to do a forklift course in Sydney. The learner had a hearing impairment and their guardian notified the RTO about this during the pre-enrolment engagement. The client made an enquiry with SafeWork to confirm their requirements and the RTO organised for an AUSLAN interpreter to attend the course to support the learner. It ended in a great outcome. The learner acquired the skills and knowledge, got the licence, SafeWork were happy and the RTO can quite rightly be very proud of this. The RTO’s ability to quickly adapt the service to the requirements of the learner in consultation with the licensing authority was outstanding.
Now consider this situation in the context of the advice provided by the regulator. Just crazy! Don’t they see that this type of interpretation of the standards actually puts barriers in the way of proper support services being provided particularly to those with disabilities.
Learning and assessment programs contextualised to the workplace
Question: A client engages a consultant or learning resource developer to engage with a client enterprise to customise the learning materials and assessments to the enterprise requirements. Do you consider this to be a third-party arrangement?
Response: No, this would not be a third-party arrangement.
Commentary: The national regulator was also asked to identify an example of what it would consider to be a third-party arrangement under this category and it did not provide a response to this request. It is hard to know what is intended by this string of words. Are they suggesting that if an RTO delivers learning and assessment which is customised to the workplace that this should be considered to be a third-party arrangement? I know, the suggestion of this is crazy, but that’s what it says, “learning and assessment programs contextualised to the workplace”. I thought, maybe it means where an RTO might engage another party to assist in this contextualisation, but clearly this is not the case either. If they are referring to where another party delivers customised training, then this would clearly come under the category relating to training and assessment services being delivered on behalf of the RTO and not as an “education and support services”. So, unfortunately, I am no clearer about this definition. Happy to receive any other advice or opinions.
Any other services that the RTO considers necessary to support learners to achieve competency.
Question: Seriously, this last one is amazing. If there wasn’t enough uncertainty in the previous items in the list, then this seriously opens the interpretation up to anything that the auditor considers in their mind might constitute a third-party arrangement. How are RTOs meant to have certainty or reliability in their regulation? Please feel free to provide an example of what “any other services” might include.
Response: The flexible nature of VET in Australia and the wide variety of delivery models used by RTOs means that regulatory requirements must be sufficiently flexible to avoid restricting access to VET. This means that prescriptive requirements cannot be stipulated, which wold be the only way of achieving the ‘certainty’ you request.
Commentary: Look; to be honest, I am still trying to digest this response. Basically, they seem to be saying that they want to leave all options on the table to interpret situations however they please, so they can regulate over RTOs’ without any limits, or something like that.
I suppose that we can conclude that “any other service” includes anything where the RTO engages a third-party service not previously excluded by the information provided above or advice contained within the fact sheet. All clear? Ok, good, lets move on! 🙂
Conclusion
Getting a clear definition from the national regulator can be challenging. I appreciate that they did respond and know from my own experience how difficult their job is. What we can conclude from regulator’s response is:
The following education and support services should not be considered as third-party arrangements:
- engaging a service provider to supply pre-enrolment material or information which is not linked to any recruitment process
- using facilities, equipment or resources of another business or organisation to support the delivery of training and assessment
- utilising the equipment and resources of a local library or equivalent facility in the support of training and assessment
The following education and support services should be considered as third-party arrangements:
- collaborating with an organisation in the delivery of learning and study support where the third party provides qualified teachers or trainers to support the course delivery
- engaging the services of a specialist provider of language literacy and numeracy support services
- utilising a disability support service in support of learning and assessment such as an AUSLAN interpreter
So, if you find that you are in a third-party arrangement (in accordance with clause 2.3), you need to establish a written third-party agreement in regard to these services and (in accordance with clause 2.4) you need to impose monitoring arrangements on these service providers to ensure the services they are providing are consistent with your obligations under the standards. You also need to notify the national regulator (in accordance with clause 8.3) a minimum of 30 days prior to these services being commenced and within 30 days of the agreement coming to an (Third Party Service Arrangement notification form).
The national regulator also indicated in their response to us that the fact sheet relating to third-party arrangements would be reviewed. We hope that some of the issues and questions raised in this request for clarification will be further clarified. You never know, hopefully we might even get some “prescriptive requirements” or maybe not. 🙂
We at Newbery Consulting feel very strongly about ensuring the quality and compliance of nationally recognised training. There is no doubt that the delivery of training and assessment and recruitment services by a third-party can pose a risk to this quality and compliance. There should continue to be tight regulation of these arrangements. We need to be careful in our sector that we do not put unnecessary barriers in the way of appropriate support services being provided to learners. We also should be careful that we do not stifle the valuable cooperative arrangements that exist between RTOs’ and other organisations such as enterprises and schools who are simply seeking nationally recognised training and wanting to collaborate with the RTO in the delivery of this. It is important that whilst providing strong regulation, we do not impose lateral consequences on providers which has the effect of hindering their support of learners and limiting innovative training with enterprises and schools.
We hope this has been helpful in providing some answers about identifying education and support services as third-party arrangements.
Good training,
Published: 6th July 2018
Copyright © Newbery Consulting 2018. All rights reserved.
VET News – 5 February 2018
|
VET News – 27 October 2017
|
Vet News – 12 September 2017
|
VET News – 14 August 2017
|
VET News
Since 2011, Newbery Consulting has published a monthly newsletter on all the major happenings in the VET sector. VET News includes articles about compliance and regulatory news, training package updates, recently published VET research publications / reports and other news that we think you need to know about. We are sorting through the huge amount of information that released each week to identify those information gems that are important. We are sorting the wheat from the chaff! The best part about VET News, it is free! There is no cost for the subscription, it is a service that Newbery Consulting provide to our wonderful VET sector and we love doing it. Click on the link below to review our news articles. You can also subscribe here: Subscribe.
VET News – 1 August 2017
|
Newbery’s Audit Guide
Newbery Consulting is sincerely committed to supporting the Australian VET Sector and promoting high quality training and assessment. We are also committed to enabling RTOs to deal with the subjective nature of regulatory audits conducted by the National VET Regulator. Your readiness to deal with not only the core evidence requirements applicable to the standards but being ready to deal with the auditor’s personal preferences that they will no doubt impose on the audit, will mean the difference between a positive or a negative audit outcome. Check out our free guide to compliance with the Standards for Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) 2015.
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Conclusion
Conclusion
Ok, that is it!
Seriously, good luck with your audit guys. Audits can be very stressful. I promise that if you prepare properly than you will stress less.
If you get some non-compliances, it is not the end of the world. Commence your rectification work straight away and confirm the requirements in the audit report and submit overwhelming evidence that puts these non-compliances to bed. If you have done the work then these non-compliances should be minor at best. If you get through the audit without any non-compliances, then you are a champion. Celebrate with a nice glass of champagne. 🙂
If this guide has assisted you in your preparation then let us know. We love getting feedback. If there was something that occurred in the audit that we have not addressed in the guide, then equally, let us know. I see this guide being continually improved based on our own engagement with audits (through our clients) and from your input. This guide is about sharing the love, so feel free to send me your war stories. I particularly love hearing stories about auditor personal preferences and subjective findings. We call that the ‘thick grey line’ of subjectivity. Send them through.
Thanks so much guys for using our audit guide. It is a pleasure to bring it to you. Good training.
Joe Newbery
Published by: Joe Newbery, released 2nd May 2017
© Newbery Consulting 2017
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Engaging in the Audit
Engaging in the Audit
The audit process can be very stressful. I get that. But it’s time to man-up or women-up as is most likely the case! You have done the hard work and have scoured every inch of your RTO finding the issues and have put in place compliant arrangements to prevent potential non-compliances. Great work! Your audit is approaching and it is now time to showcase your RTO to the regulator. How does the audit process work?
If you are seeking a renewal of registration then you would have completed the application approximately 90 days before the end of your current registration period. The application is quite simple and includes some entity documents, declarations and the details of your operation. Take the opportunity during your renewal of registration to review your scope of registration. Get rid of the items on your scope that you are needing to maintain and do not get any commercial return on. Think of scope of registration as an asset that needs to be maintained. If you are not getting a return of that asset then move it on.
Delivery Activity Data Summary
About 12 to 10 weeks out from the audit, a Support Officer within the regional office will send an email requesting the provision of RTO Delivery Data. This information is requested to be compiled into the ASQA Delivery Activity Data Summary (click). This information return will need to include all training products on your scope of information and be accurately compiled. This information may be cross checked with your student information system data during the site visit so make sure it is accurate. This data is used to develop the scope of the regulatory audit. The selection of training products to be audited is influenced by the degree of activity (enrolments/completions), delivery locations and industry areas. We find that ASQA will generally audit 2 training products from each industry area where delivery has occurred. If you have training products on your scope that have been approved without an audit then these will generally be audited if delivery has occurred. If you have notified the regulator of training products which are utilised in third-party arrangement, then these will always be audited.
Student survey
About 10 to 8 weeks out from the audit, you may be provided an email from ASQA requesting that you forward a templated email to a sample of students containing an invitation to complete a student survey. The survey is now a standard component of the ASQA new audit model and focuses on seeking feedback from your learners about their experience in relation to marketing and recruitment, their enrolment, support services, their training and assessment and completion. You will generally not receive any feedback or notification of the results of this survey. It is intended to inform ASQA’s audit approach including their selection of audit scope and site visits. You can read more about how the student surveys are conducted at the following link (click). Be aware that student surveys may also occur at other times outside the audit process.
Audit scheduling
About 8 to 6 weeks out from your audit date the ASQA auditor will generally give you a call and introduce themselves and propose an audit date. You generally are required to accept this date but there is some wriggle room. If you have something major happening at that time, then you can request an alternative date that is more suitable. The time to do this is during the initial phone call so in the preparation for an audit make sure you are aware of your schedule and the timeframe that is most suitable for you to engage in the audit. It will not be acceptable to push the audit date back too far so generally try and work in the timeframe the auditor has suggested.
Notice of scheduled site audit and request for pre-audit evidence
About 6 to 4 weeks out from your audit, you will be provided with a “Notice of scheduled site audit” which is provided via email. The notice identifies that the audit has been scheduled and the legislation under which the audit is being conducted. The details of the site visit will be provided, so check these and make sure the auditor is coming to the right address on the date agreed. If any of the details are not correct it is quite straightforward to email the auditor back and inform them of the discrepancy. ASQA will always initially seek to conduct the audit at the nominated head office of the RTO. The notice will also inform you of the audit scope which will include the clauses to be audited and the qualifications or training products selected from your scope of registration to be sampled in the audit. Be aware that; where a qualification is being audited, you will not be advised of the units of competency to be sampled in those qualifications until the day of the site visit. This is why you need to have everything ready.
Most importantly, the notice will request some evidence to be sent to the auditor prior to the site visit. This is called ‘pre-audit evidence’. The auditor will list the items required and specify a date the information is required to be provided. The pre-audit evidence is typically emailed to the regional office. These emails are a standard template; however, the auditor does have the allowance to amend this template and request other pre-audit evidence on top of the standard list. The Melbourne office is notorious for this. The following are the standard items that will be requested as pre-audit evidence:
- Strategies for training and assessment for all training products listed.
- A copy of any agreements your organisation has in place with other parties to deliver or assess the above training products on your behalf.
- Details of each trainer and assessor’s qualifications, training/assessment & vocational competence and industry currency – as relevant to the above training products.
- A copy of your organisation’s marketing materials relevant to the above training products i.e. student information handbook
Other items that auditors may include in addition to the above items are the RTO Staff Handbook or Policy and Procedure. Some auditors will also request a sample of the assessments being used for a qualification although this is becoming rarer. Make sure that you send this pre-audit evidence as one consolidated submission on or prior to the date nominated. I generally apply a rule that any document provided to the regulator is always provided in a PDF format. This prevents the format of documents being smashed by different software programs. If I have several files to be sent, I will always get the client to pop these into a zip folder to be sent as one attachment. Be aware that the ASQA email gateway will accept emails up to about 12 meg. Beyond that, you might consider sending a link to a shared folder such as dropbox. We have done this quite regularly and ASQA seem fine to click on the link and download files. There were a few olds and bolds in the Sydney office that struggled with this, but I think they are ok now. 🙂 Ok, pre-audit evidence sent,,, Tick!
The site visit
You are nervous. I know. But it is time to put your best foot forward and showcase the compliance and systems of your RTO. The site visit may be conducted over several days. Typically for a small scope of registration involving 1 or 2 qualifications, the audit could be conducted by one person on a single day. It is very common in an audit to have an experienced auditor teamed up with a person who is learning the ropes. ASQA have been haemorrhaging experienced auditors so there is lots of new faces out there under instruction in the ‘workplace’.
The audit will commence with an opening meeting where the auditor will explain the audit process and the legislation under which the audit is conducted. The auditor will explain how evidence will be gathered and the potential consequences that may result from the audit. This is all standard stuff, so don’t think that you auditor is particularly scary at this point. You will be required to sign a sheet that indicates your attendance at the opening meeting. This is normal. I typically recommend clients to have a very brief presentation ready to present to the auditor. When I say brief I seriously mean 5-7 minutes. The auditor will be keen to get started with the first standard but this is an opportunity for you to provide the auditor some context to your operation. Auditing like risk assessment is all about the context. The auditor will have been provided some information about your organisation, but nobody knows your organisation better than you. A quick opening brief sets the context and gives you the opportunity to explain some basic operational aspects that might influence how your services are delivered. I suggest the following key points:
- Open and welcome
- Identify the entity and branding
- Show the organisational structure and appointments
- Identify the operating locations facilities
- Identify the target learner
- Briefly describe the delivery model
- Briefly address perceived any risks such as third-party arrangements
During the audit
Ok, the audit has now commenced and the auditor will open with a standard and a clause and fire off their first question. ASQA have recently introduced their new audit model. There is a good explanation of this at the following link (click). Following this model, the auditor will commence with standard 4 relating to marketing and work their way through various clauses until they arrive at standard 3 relating to the issuance of AQF certificates. This is what we call holistic auditing and is not new to the VET sector. I first used holistic auditing with NARA who introduced a student pathway model which is basically the same (everything old is new again!). Most auditors struggle with this type of model, particularly if their audit tool or report is not formatted in this sequence. Don’t be surprised if the auditor does not follow the ‘new audit model’ and defaults back into a lineal audit approach commencing with standard 1. In reality, it doesn’t really matter. You will simply respond to questions and requests for evidence as they occur.
Just a couple of main points to finish off with to follow during the conduct of the audit:
- I recommend that you set up the room for the audit with the big table in the middle that seats up to 6-8 people, like a conference table. Make sure you run power under the table so that you and the auditor can plug their computers in. Virtually all auditors these days will arrive with a laptop. On this table, have your computer set up and connected to a projector which is projecting information on to the wall. Most audit evidence these days can be presented electronically and auditors are fine with this (generally). I always tell clients that an audit is a show and tell process.
- Make sure you have at least 2-3 people from your organisation involved in the audit. If you are a small RTO and it means that you need to pull a trainer in for the day, then do it. There will usually be one primary person that is responding to the questions. The other people are taking notes, disappearing to retrieve evidence from another room and also operating the computer and projector. It is desirable that the person who is responding to questions is not also trying to navigate the computer. If you have prepared for the evidence and questions in this guide, then you will know what to expect and as soon as the auditor mentions some keywords, the person on the computer is already moving to that evidence.
- Just a small point about having people other than yourself attending the audit. First thing is, try to avoid having any alpha male / female personality types in on the audit. Unless you have confidence that they can control themselves for the day, it is not the time to have anyone in their that will intimidate the auditor or impose some silly show of strength. This is a waste of emotional energy and usually only impact negatively on your audit. The auditor is running the show, so let them be ‘in-charge’ and cooperate with them professionally and with confidence. I also do not recommend that you have your consultant in on your audit. We do not attend our client’s audits. Actually we do make an exception for a couple of auditors in the Sydney office, but other than this; we take the approach that our client needs to know their stuff and represent themselves. Through coaching and practice audits, we prepare the client to tackle anything that comes. Beware of consultants who do not take this approach. They are not doing you any favours short or long term. Most auditors think very poorly of an RTO that needs their consultant to be at the audit.
- Make sure that you take notes. Come organised with the basic document with all the clauses to be audited listed with lots of space to record notes. Generally, take notes on the questions that the auditor asks and their response to the evidence you present. Particularly note issues that arise where the auditor may consider something non-compliant or request additional evidence. If there are non-compliances, then these notes will be critical for you to commence your rectification work directly following the audit. I recommend that our clients get at least two people taking notes. The morning after the audit, get together and conduct a wash-up and consolidate the notes, findings and opportunities for improvement. These small initiatives can have a very powerful and positive effect.
- Try and have all the evidence available in the room. It is a huge time waster if people need to leave the audit to go and find evidence in another location of the building. Most evidence will be electronic and will be on the computer. Other evidence that is not on the computer may include things like learner records. Now, we do not know which learners the auditor will sample but I would recommend having up to 10 complete learner records for the qualifications being audited based on learners that have completed the relevant courses in the last 6 months. The auditor may not select these but you can offer them and this may save some time during the day. Also, have a side table in the room with relevant hard copy documents of evidence that the auditor may request. I typically recommend that the client have a hard copy of their policy and procedure, learner handbook, enrolment information package, examples of marketing, sample AQF certificates, training and assessment strategies and training qualifications/PD. If your audit is an initial registration, I do not recommend printing every assessment guide and learning guide for the audit. Maybe print one unit just as a sample and allow the auditor to select their sample and then be prepared to print these documents on demand. The auditor may also be happy to view these documents via the projector.
- When responding to questions, don’t think that you need to have every single detail in your mind. A strategy that I coach clients with is to prepare them to provide a broad response in relation to an initial question about a clause. As an example, the auditor might ask: “Can you talk me through your arrangements to handle complaints and appeals?”. That is a big question and not something that can really be answered in a single response. I would recommend that you would respond with something like: “Yes, well we have established details within the learner handbook to inform the learner about their right to make a complaint or seeking appeal. We also have a policy and procedure that guides our approach in responding to and handling complaints and appeals. This includes an arrangement for an independent third party review. These policies are available to the public on our website. We also establish a link between the outcomes of complaints and appeals and our continuous improvement process.”. Now, you will notice in this response that I have simply canvassed the overarching arrangements and have not got into detail. This now presents the opportunity for the auditor to ask a secondary question, which will usually be at a lower level of evidence and something that you can then show and explain.
- Final point, you need to fight the fight. During the audit, there may be occasions where the auditor raises concern about your approach or operation and indicates that they do not think that it meets the requirements of the standard. This is not the time to lie down and allow the auditor to wash over you. It is a call to action that must be responded to. You need to professionally and politely explain your arrangements and present further details that may address the auditor’s concerns. This is particularly important in the auditing of assessment where your subject matter expertise is a key factor in explaining how the assessment meets the requirements of the unit of competency. My point is, if a problem arises and you don’t respond to address it then it will flow through to a non-compliance. If it is non-compliant then, ok, but if the auditor is applying their personal preferences on the audit, you need to call this out and seek clarification on where this requirement is specified within the standards. You can spot personal preferences very easily if you know the standards. A simple question like: “Is this something that you personally prefer to see or is this actually specified within the standards” Key point is, fight the fight and don’t allow the auditor to come to conclusions before they have seen every scrap of evidence that is relevant. Do not allow the auditor to impose their personal preferences in the audit. Call it out!!
- Sorry, second final point, if minor issues arise with documentation during the day, then have someone available in the room that can scurry away onto a computer in another room and fix the issue and bring back rectified evidence. Don’t particularly asked for permission to do this, just do it and provide the rectified evidence (you can gauge this yourself based on how reasonable the auditor is). If you ask for allowance to do this, some audiences will deny the request based on their lack of understanding or acceptance of the audit evidence process. Once the evidence is presented to them, then it is difficult for them to ignore. Also, if there are some very minor issues that can be rectified post audit (that night), then seek an allowance from the auditor to provide them this information either overnight or within a few hours following the audit. Sometimes there are the most minor issues which can be easily rectified and which potentially hold up a fully compliant audit outcome. Most reasonable auditors will allow the RTO to make a quick change and provide supplementary evidence.
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 8.5/8.6
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 8.5/8.6
What the clause requires:
8.5. The RTO complies with Commonwealth, State and Territory legislation and regulatory requirements relevant to its operations.
8.6. The RTO ensures its staff and clients are informed of any changes to legislative and regulatory requirements that affect the services delivered.
What is this clause about:
This clause 8.5, requires the RTO to ensure that it is complying with the Commonwealth, State and Territory legislation and regulatory requirements relevant to its operations. It is quite rare for the regulator to audit compliance with legislation other than the one that it is responsible for being the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011. In fact, it’s not just a rare, they just don’t do it. This is a mutual support clause that ties the conduct of the RTO in with other relevant legislation that applies to it. Typically, if an auditor identifies something at an audit that they feel is non-compliance with other legislation (such as a breach of privacy legislation) then this is recorded within the audit notes and report and then referred via ASQA to the relevant statutory authority who oversees the regulation of the relevant legislation. Noting all of this, the RTO does need to do an analysis of the legislation and regulatory requirements that is applicable to its operation. Legislation that applies to work health and safety, discrimination, privacy, unique student identifier and consumer protection are all obvious and generally applicable to every RTO.
The clause 8.6, is more frequently audited and requires the RTO to demonstrate that it not only has suitable arrangements in place to comply with relevant legislation but has established arrangements to inform staff and clients about this legislation. This might occur during a staff induction where they are provided information about legislative compliance requirements and then provided with updates as they are required. In respect of learners, the RTO might generally provide learners with information about relevant legislative compliance obligations within the learner handbook. This might be as simple as a section that informs the prospective learner about how their personal information will be handled and what rights they have in respect of their privacy protection or how to contribute to maintaining a safe environment whilst engaging with the RTO. For audit purposes, it is desirable that the RTO obtain an acknowledgement from these stakeholders that they have been informed about their legislative obligations. For learners, this may be incorporated into their enrolment agreement and for staff may be incorporated into their employment agreement. You can subscribe to updates to legislation at the Federal Register of Legislation (click)
You must be able to demonstrate that:
You have established arrangements to comply with relevant Commonwealth, State and Territory legislation and regulatory requirements.
You have established and apply arrangements to ensure that staff and learners are informed of any changes to legislative and regulatory requirements that affect the services delivered.
Evidence to prepare:
Policies relating to compliance with legislation such as training safety, equity, discrimination, privacy, copyright, fair trading, etc
Information sources that inform staff of their legal obligations such as relevant policy, employment agreements all public information available from relevant statutory authorities.
Staff induction records where staff have signed to acknowledge their duties and responsibilities relevant to legislative obligations.
Learner handbook or other information source that informs learners of their rights and obligations.
Enrollment record that confirms learners are provided information about their responsibilities and obligations with legislation.
Arrangements (and examples) to educate staff of their legislative responsibilities such as an agenda item in a staff meeting specifically relating to legislative compliance.
You should prepare for these types of questions:
Can you talk me through the arrangements you have established to comply with relevant Commonwealth, State and Territory legislation and regulatory requirements?
You mentioned that you have established arrangements to comply with privacy legislation, can you show me this and talk me through how it works?
You mention here in your work health and safety policy that you maintain a near miss register. Can I see this register please?
What is your process to inform staff and contractors working on your behalf of their responsibilities and obligations with legislation relevant to your operation?
Can I see a completed example of a staff induction record?
Can you talk me through what steps you take to ensure that learners commencing a course with you are informed about their responsibilities and obligations with relevant legislation?
Can I see a signed acknowledgement from a learner relating to their legislative responsibilities and obligations?
How do you monitor or get informed of any relevant changes to legislation?
How do you update staff and learners about any relevant changes to legislation? Can I see an example of this?
Published by: Joe Newbery, released 2nd May 2017
© Newbery Consulting 2017
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 8.3
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 8.3
What the clause requires:
8.3. The RTO notifies the Regulator:
a) of any written agreement entered into under Clause 2.3 for the delivery of services on its behalf within 30 calendar days of that agreement being entered into or prior to the obligations under the agreement taking effect, whichever occurs first; and
b) within 30 calendar days of the agreement coming to an end.
What is this clause about:
This clause requires the RTO to notify the VET regulator when it either commences or finalises a third-party arrangement. As opposed to clause 8.1 which allowed a notification within 90 days of the change occurring, the notification of third-party agreement must be provided within 30 calendar days of that agreement being entered into or prior to the obligations under the agreement taking effect, whichever comes first. The regulator wants to know about these arrangements before they commence. Why? Because third-party arrangements represent one of the most significant risks to the quality of training being provided within the VET sector. The VET regulator requires to be informed about these arrangements before they come into effect. ASQA is also required to be informed within 30 calendar days of the agreement coming to an end. It is quite rare for these notifications to derive any response from the regulator. Only on number of occasions I have observed the regulator respond to the notification to request more information about the arrangement. This information has included the training and assessment strategy for the intended delivery, the qualification and competency details of the nominated trainers in support of the arrangement, details of delivery sites and a copy of the third-party agreement. To facilitate notification ASQA has provided the following online form: Third Party Service Arrangement notification form.
You must be able to demonstrate that:
You have provided notification to ASQA of any third-party arrangements within 30 calendar days of the written agreement being entered into and within 30 calendar days of the written agreement coming to an end.
Evidence to prepare:
Copy of all third-party agreements or MOUs.
Evidence of notification to the VET regulator for the delivery of services on its behalf by a third-party prior to these arrangements taking effect.
Find more information on the ASQA website: Click Here
You should prepare for these types of questions:
Has notification being provided to ASQA in respect of these third-party arrangements?
Did you receive an email receipt for these notifications?
Published by: Joe Newbery, released 2nd May 2017
© Newbery Consulting 2017
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 8.2
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 8.2
What the clause requires:
8.2. The RTO ensures that any third-party delivering services on its behalf is required under written agreement to cooperate with the VET Regulator:
a) by providing accurate and factual responses to information requests from the VET Regulator relevant to the delivery of services; and
b) in the conduct of audits and the monitoring of its operations.
What is this clause about:
This clause requires the RTO to have in place an agreement with third parties that requires the third-party to cooperate with the VET regulator by providing accurate and factual responses to information requests by the VET regulator and to cooperate during the conduct of audits and monitoring of its operations. Standard 8 is all about requiring the RTO to cooperate with the VET regulator. It makes sense that if the RTO is engaged in 3rd party arrangements that the third-party also have an obligation to cooperate with the VET regulator. The only way of doing this is to make it mandatory that the RTO insert this clause into the third-party agreement.
You must be able to demonstrate that:
You have included a specific clause in all third-party agreements that requires the third-party to cooperate with the VET regulator by providing accurate and factual responses to information requests by the VET regulator and to cooperate during the conduct of audits and monitoring of its operations.
Evidence to prepare:
Copy of all third-party agreements or MOUs indicating that the third-party must cooperate with the VET regulator by providing accurate and factual responses to information requests by the VET regulator and cooperate during the conduct of audits and monitoring of its operations (only required if using third-party arrangements).
You should prepare for these types of questions:
Are you engaged in any third-party arrangements where others are delivering services on your behalf as an RTO?
Can you provide me the written agreement for these third-party arrangements please?
Can you show me where within this agreement you have specified the requirement for the third-party to cooperate with the VET regulator?
Published by: Joe Newbery, released 2nd May 2017
© Newbery Consulting 2017
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 8.1
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 8.1
What the clause requires:
8.1. The RTO cooperates with the VET Regulator:
a) by providing accurate and truthful responses to information requests from the VET Regulator relevant to the RTO’s registration;
b) in the conduct of audits and the monitoring of its operations;
c) by providing quality/performance indicator data;
d) by providing information about substantial changes to its operations or any event that would significantly affect the RTO’s ability to comply with these standards within 90 calendar days of the change occurring;
e) by providing information about significant changes to its ownership within 90 calendar days of the change occurring; and
f) in the retention, archiving, retrieval and transfer of records.
What is this clause about:
This clause requires the RTO to keep the National VET Regulator informed about changes to its operation and comply with requests for information and mandatory reporting obligations. These requirements include reporting quality indicator data each year no later than 30 June (click), reporting total VET activity data each year no later than 28th February (click), notifying ASQA of any material or significant changes to the RTO’s operation (click), transfer records to ASQA at the end of the RTO’s registration period (click). Of course, this last one is not usually audited. In fact, it may only be during an on-site renewal of registration or monitoring audit that this clause would be audited. There is no compliance requirement for the organisation to have documented arrangements around these requirements, although we do supply such a policy as it does provide the organisation point of reference and procedure to comply with these notification requirements. These items are quite easily audited based on the activity of the RTO. The primary means of auditing will be to request the RTO provide receipts for submissions it has made to the national regulator. These will be in the form of emails confirming the receipt of mandatory reporting and notification of changes.
You must be able to demonstrate that:
You comply with mandatory reporting requirements including quality indicator and total VET activity reporting.
You notify the regulator within 90 calendar days of the change occurring of any significant or material changes to the RTO operation.
Evidence to prepare:
Evidence of any notifications of changes submitted on ASQANet. These may include a change of contact details or a change of delivery sites. However minor the notification is, these provide valuable evidence of how you have kept the regulator informed about your current operation. It is recommended that any correspondence received from ASQA is filed onto a designated file to enable it to be accessed during a regulatory audit.
Previous years Quality Indicator report – email receipt
Previous is total VET activity report – email receipt
Review the details on the national training register for the RTO and ensure that these are accurate well prior to the audit
You should prepare for these types of questions:
Have you reported any material or significant changes to your operation to the regulator in the last 2 years?
Can I see your last Quality Indicator report please? Did you receive an email from ASQA confirming receipt of this report?
When and how did you submit your last total VET activity report? Did you receive an email from the NCVER confirming receipt of this report?
Looking at the current details on the national training register, are these details currently accurate and reflect the current operation?
Published by: Joe Newbery, released 2nd May 2017
© Newbery Consulting 2017
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 7.4
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 7.4
What the clause requires:
7.4. The RTO holds public liability insurance that covers the scope of its operations throughout its registration period.
What is this clause about:
This clause requires the RTO to hold current public liability insurance. This requirement was always audited by the regulator up until these new standards were introduced. Since 2015, I have not experienced an auditor requesting to verify public liability insurance of a client. Still, the requirement still exists and is a specified requirement of the legislative instrument Data Provision Requirements 2012 to supply this information to the regulator of request (click).
There is nothing tricky about this clause. It is important to note that this clause only relates to public liability insurance. It is not a requirement of the standards for the RTO to hold any other type of insurance although good business practice will demand that the RTO hold relevant insurances to protect its assets. From the regulators prospective, they are only interested in public liability insurance as this relates to the protection of learners engaging with the RTO. The only other point to note about this requirement is that it must be for the same entity as listed on the national training register and confirm that the insurance covers training and assessment activities. To be clear about this, the certificate of currency issued by the insurer must clearly identify the same entity as the RTO listed on TGA. It must also identify that the insurance covers the entity for the delivery of training and assessment activities (or words to that effect). It is fairly common for this not to be included on the certificate of currency and it is usually quite easy to ask the broker to include this information. There is a misconception that the RTO’s scope of registration should be included in the certificate of currency. I think this results from the words “scope of operation” being part of the clause. I have never seen this required in a regulatory audit and consider it to be an urban myth.
You must be able to demonstrate that:
You hold public liability insurance that covers the scope of its operations throughout its registration period.
Evidence to prepare:
Copy of the current Certificate of Currency for Public Liability.
Evidence that the insurance relates to the RTO entity and for the delivery of training services.
You should prepare for these types of questions:
Can I see the current Certificate of Currency for your Public Liability insurance and its policy document?
Published by: Joe Newbery, released 2nd May 2017
© Newbery Consulting 2017
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 7.3
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 7.3
What the clause requires:
7.3. Where the RTO requires, either directly or through a third-party, a prospective or current learner to prepay fees in excess of a total of $1500 (being the threshold prepaid fee amount), the RTO must meet the requirements set out in the Requirements for Fee Protection in Schedule 6.
What is this clause about:
This clause requires the RTO to implement arrangements to protect the fees paid by learners in advance of services being provided. This is a requirement because following the GFC in 2008, more than a few RTO’s went to the wall and took all of their learner’s prepaid fees with them to the administrators. The standards currently give an RTO three options. The RTO may limit the amount required to be paid at any time by the learner to not exceed $1500 in advance of services being provided (90% of RTOs), the RTO may hold an unconditional financial guarantee from a bank operating in Australia (very expensive to get) or the RTO may hold a current membership of a Tuition Assurance Scheme. There is a fourth alternative which allows the RTO to seek an alternative fee protection measure from the ASQA. The vast majority of RTO’s utilise the standard option to limit the amount of fees charged in advance of services being provided to $1500. There are a number of misconceptions about this requirement. The standard says that this applies to prospective or current learner’s. So, this requirement is broader than just fees paid prior to the course commencement. It also relates to fees paid during the conduct of the course. To be clear, where any fee is required from a learner in advance of the services being provided; before or during the course, then any single payment cannot exceed $1500.
Take home point: Unless you have a contractual obligation to hold a membership in a Tuition Assurance Scheme (such as the VET Student Loan Scheme), you do not need it. I occasionally come across RTOs who do not have any such obligation but have been “convinced” by a Tuition Assurance Scheme that they must have membership to comply with this clause. Tuition Assurance could cost you between $5,000 – $12,000 per year. The Tuition Assurance provider is very happy to take your money. All you simply need to do is structure your fees so that no single payment in advance exceeds $1,500. Easy! Beware of those who seek to take advantage of your ignorance.
You must be able to demonstrate that:
You do not require prospective or current learner’s to prepay fees in excess of $1500.
Evidence to prepare:
Fee schedule and fee information included in pre-enrolment information
Access to learner records relating to fee payments
Tuition Assurance Scheme membership if applicable
Evidence of unconditional financial guarantee from a bank operating in Australia if applicable
You should prepare for these types of questions:
Are there any courses that you provide where you require payment in advance of services being provided in excess of $1500?
Can you provide me a copy of your fee schedule or fee information that identifies the total amount and the required fee payments during learner’s enrolment?
Can I access the payment details for the following students please?
Published by: Joe Newbery, released 2nd May 2017
© Newbery Consulting 2017
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 6.1-6.6
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 6.1-6.6
What the clause requires:
6.1. The RTO has a complaints policy to manage and respond to allegations involving the conduct of:
a) the RTO, its trainers, assessors or other staff;
b) a third-party providing services on the RTO’s behalf, its trainers, assessors or other staff; or
c) a learner of the RTO.
6.2. The RTO has an appeals policy to manage requests for a review of decisions, including assessment decisions, made by the RTO or a third-party providing services on the RTO’s behalf.
6.3. The RTO’s complaints policy and appeals policy:
a) ensure the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness are adopted at every stage of the complaint and appeal process;
b) are publicly available;
c) set out the procedure for making a complaint or requesting an appeal;
d) ensure complaints and requests for an appeal are acknowledged in writing and finalised as soon as practicable; and
e) provide for review by an appropriate party independent of the RTO and the complainant or appellant, at the request of the individual making the complaint or appeal, if the processes fail to resolve the complaint or appeal.
6.4. Where the RTO considers more than 60 calendar days are required to process and finalise the complaint or appeal, the RTO:
a) informs the complainant or appellant in writing, including reasons why more than 60 calendar days are required; and
b) regularly updates the complainant or appellant on the progress of the matter.
6.5. The RTO:
a) securely maintains records of all complaints and appeals and their outcomes; and
b) identifies potential causes of complaints and appeals and takes appropriate corrective action to eliminate or mitigate the likelihood of reoccurrence.
What is this clause about:
This clause requires the RTO to establish and apply a complaints policy and procedure and an appeals policy and procedure. These do not need to be separated and can be combined into the one complaints and appeals policy and procedure. It is important to note the difference between a complaint and an appeal. A complaint is merely an expression of dissatisfaction with something or someone in connection to the RTO. An appeal is where the person is seeking the RTO to review a decision that it has made. This is normally where the decision has an adverse impact on the person such as where an RTO declines an application for refund from a learner who failed to attend the course. Most appeals are administrative related and contrary to popular belief appeals of assessment decisions are reasonably rare.
Another important aspect of these clauses is the requirement for the policies to be broadly applicable to anyone. So, this is not purely a learner centric requirement. If an employer seeks to make a complaint about the RTO, if a staff member wishes to make a complaint about a learner or the learner wishes to make a complaint about the RTO, it is applicable in all of these situations. This is why the policy needs to be publicly available and not simply contained within the learner handbook. The complaints and appeals policy needs to adopt the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness particularly relating to where allegations may be made by one person about another. This includes the requirement to hear both sides of the matter and allow for unbiased and fair representation. Most states and territories ombudsman have guidelines on the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. These typically provide a good source of information to ensure your policy is achieving the requirement. The following link provides access to the NSW Ombudsman (as an example), Fact Sheet relating to Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness (click).
The remaining tricky component in these clauses relates to providing for independent third-party review where a complaint or an appeal remains unresolved. After the person has had an opportunity to make their complaint and receive a response, if they remain not satisfied with the process or response then they now have the right to request the RTO to have the matter reviewed by an independent third-party. Just to be clear, the independent third-party is not ASQA, is not the National Training Complaint Service and is not your State Fair Trading Authority. It is an independent third-party that you engage. This may be a professional complaints resolution service provider or a consultant that you engage to review and report back on the matter. You will need to establish arrangements for how this review will occur including how the person is engaged, the timeframe for their review, reporting requirements, actions on receiving their recommendations, et cetera. It’s only after the person has made a complaint, received a formal reply by the RTO, is not satisfied and seeks a third-party review, the review is undertaken by the independent third-party and reported, that if the person remains not satisfied with the process then they have the option to take their complaint or appeal further to other authorities. They can clearly take their issue to these authorities before all of this has occurred; however, generally these authorities will require them to first utilise the RTO’s complaints and appeals arrangements (there have been exceptions to this but generally this is the case).
The remaining specific items that the auditor will want to confirm are that you provide a written acknowledgement when you receive a complaint or an appeal to the person as soon as practicable. I suggest you do this within 24 hours. You should establish arrangements to provide the person with regular updates and ensure that the records of the complaint or the appeal are securely stored and kept confidential. Finally, at the end of the process you need to identify any opportunities for improvement to prevent the recurrence of the complaint/appeal. This requirement dovetails with clause 2.2 which identifies outcomes coming from complaints and appeals as an input to quality improvement. You need to be able to identify at the end of the complaints process that this action is undertaken and there is a systematic method of referring or reporting these opportunities for improvement.
You must be able to demonstrate that:
You have a suitable policy for the handling of complaints and appeals which adopts the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, is publicly available and includes the procedure for submitting a complaint or appeal.
You provide a complaints and appeals arrangement which is broadly applicable not only for learners but also the RTO staff and third parties.
You acknowledge complaints and appeals as soon as practicable and provide regular updates to those making a complaint or seeking appeal
You resolve complaints and appeals as soon as practicable, but if the matter is likely to take longer than 60 days then you must advise the person in writing and provide regular updates.
You provide for an independent third-party review of complaints and appeals where this is requested.
You maintain the security of complaints and appeals records to ensure confidentiality and identify and act on opportunities for improvement resulting from complaints and appeals handling
Evidence to prepare:
Complaints and Appeals Policy
Complaints and Appeals Procedure
Complaints and Appeals Policy Forms and other forms
Complaints and Appeals register
Records of completed complaints or appeals (especially correspondence).
Opportunities for improvement that have resulted from handling complaints or appeals and evidence of how these have been acted upon
You should prepare for these types of questions:
Can you talk me through your complaints and appeals handling process? Is there a policy and procedure? Is this publicly available?
Do you have any examples of complaints over the last 12 months? Can I see all the documentation relating to these?
How to you record complaints and appeals. Do you place timeframes for the initial response to the candidate?
How do your arrangements adopt the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness?
Can you talk me through your arrangements to refer unresolved complaints and appeals to an independent third-party?
Can you identify any opportunities for improvement that have resulted from your complaints handling?
Published by: Joe Newbery, released 2nd May 2017
© Newbery Consulting 2017
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 5.4
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 5.4
What the clause requires:
5.4. Where there are any changes to agreed services, the RTO advises the learner as soon as practicable, including in relation to any new third-party arrangements or a change in ownership or changes to existing third-party arrangements.
What is this clause about:
This clause requires the RTO to establish arrangements to ensure that where the RTO chooses to make changes to agreed services or the learner’s terms and conditions, that the RTO advises the learner as soon as practicable of the applicable changes. This also includes where third parties make changes to their services or terms and conditions. It would be a breach of the consumer’s rights to change the terms and conditions or the services specified in their service agreement without providing them proper notification of this. This is a simple requirement that requires a basic arrangement to provide learners with a notification period prior to any changes taking effect. I would typically recommend that an RTO align this notification period with their appeals period. As an example, the RTO provides learners 30 calendar days to appeal decisions that it has made. The RTO also commits to providing learners with a minimum of 30 days notification of any changes in services or terms and conditions prior to their taking effect. This enables the learner to appeal any changes to terms and conditions or services prior to these changes taking effect and impacting unfairly on the learner. Auditors can also focus on the method of notification. Whilst the student handbook and the RTO policy may reinforce these arrangements, how does the RTO provide the notification?
You must be able to demonstrate that:
You advise learners of any changes to agreed services or terms and conditions.
Evidence to prepare:
Access to the learner or participant handbook and the learners agreed terms and conditions.
Policy and procedure relating to changes to agreed services and terms and conditions.
Learner service agreements which include terms and conditions.
Access to administrative forms such as those used two inform learners about changes to services or agreed terms and conditions and obtained their acknowledgement.
You should prepare for these types of questions:
Can you show me where you inform the learner about their right to be informed about any changes to the agreed services or terms and conditions?
How do you provide these notifications? Do you obtain an acknowledgement?
Do you have an example of a notification issued where there has been changed to the services or terms and conditions?
Published by: Joe Newbery, released 2nd May 2017
© Newbery Consulting 2017
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 5.3
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 5.3
What the clause requires:
5.3. Where the RTO collects fees from the individual learner, either directly or through a third-party, the RTO provides or directs the learner to information prior to enrolment or the commencement of training and assessment, whichever comes first, specifying:
a) all relevant fee information including:
i) fees that must be paid to the RTO; and
ii) payment terms and conditions including deposits and refunds;
b) the learner’s rights as a consumer, including but not limited to any statutory cooling-off period, if one applies;
c) the learner’s right to obtain a refund for services not provided by the RTO in the event the:
i) arrangement is terminated early; or
ii) the RTO fails to provide the agreed services.
What is this clause about:
This clause specifies the minimum information requirements that must be provided to prospective learner prior to their enrolment or commencement to inform them about the RTO’s collection of fees from the individual learner. This includes the total amount of fees to be paid and the schedule of payments, the payment terms and conditions including deposits and refunds.
Just a quick note on the requirement relating to a statutory cooling off period specified at clause 5.3b. This clause specifies the requirement that the RTO inform prospective learners about their consumer rights. Consumer Law in Australia has generally been harmonised across all states and territories. There are some useful information sources available at the following website to inform learners about their consumer rights (click). Apart from specifying this, the clause also makes a special mention of any statutory cooling off period, if one applies. What is a statutory cooling off period and what are the circumstances when one applies? Great question! The ACCC identify that, “A cooling-off period is a safeguard designed to give consumers the opportunity to change their minds about a purchase or agreement they have made. You have a right to a cooling-off period when you purchase goods or services through telemarketing or door-to-door sales (click). Where a service agreement is obtained through telemarketing or door-to-door sales (click) this is referred to as an ‘unsolicited consumer agreement’. It is under these types of agreements that a statutory cooling off period applies. If your RTO does not undertake marketing using these types of sales tactics, then the statutory cooling off period disclosure requirement will not be applicable to you.
You must be able to demonstrate that:
You provide information that informs the learner about their obligation to make fees and payments including the total amount of fees to be paid and the schedule of payments, the payment terms and conditions including deposits and refunds, the learner’s consumer rights and the learner’s rights to obtain a refund where the services are terminated early or the RTO fails to provide the agreed services.
Evidence to prepare:
Learner or participant handbook which includes information about fees, payments and refunds.
Fee schedule documents that include information about the total fees and the required schedule of payments to be made.
Policy and procedure relating to fee payments, refunds, early termination, transfers or fee credits.
Learner service agreements which include terms and conditions.
Policy relating to the learner’s rights if the RTO terminates the services early or is unable to deliver the service.
Access to learner payment records.
Access to administrative forms such as those required to request a refund
Access to learner records to verify agreed terms and conditions.
You should prepare for these types of questions:
Can you talk me through how the learner is provided information about the applicable fees, payments and refunds?
How do you inform learners about their rights as a consumer?
What is the process for the learner to request a refund?
Can you talk me through your marketing arrangements? Do you undertake any telemarketing or door-to-door sales? If so, how do you inform learners of their right to a statutory cooling off period?
Do you have a service agreement that learners are required to sign as part of their enrolment? Can you provide me a copy of this for the following learners please?
Can you recall a situation where a learner has been provided a refund? Is it possible to access the learner’s file and the payment records for this learner?
Published by: Joe Newbery, released 2nd May 2017
© Newbery Consulting 2017
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 5.2
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 5.2
What the clause requires:
5.2. Prior to enrolment or the commencement of training and assessment, whichever comes first, the RTO provides, in print or through referral to an electronic copy, current and accurate information that enables the learner to make informed decisions about undertaking training with the RTO and at a minimum includes the following content:
a) the code, title and currency of the training product to which the learner is to be enrolled, as published on the National Register;
b) the training and assessment, and related educational and support services the RTO will provide to the learner including the:
i) estimated duration;
ii) expected locations at which it will be provided;
iii) expected modes of delivery;
iv) name and contact details of any third-party that will provide training and/or assessment, and related educational and support services to the learner on the RTO’s behalf; and
v) any work placement arrangements.
c) the RTO’s obligations to the learner, including that the RTO is responsible for the quality of the training and assessment in compliance with these Standards, and for the issuance of the AQF certification documentation.
d) the learner’s rights, including:
i) details of the RTO’s complaints and appeals process required by Standard 6; and
ii) if the RTO, or a third-party delivering training and assessment on its behalf, closes or ceases to deliver any part of the training product that the learner is enrolled in;
e) the learner’s obligations:
i) in relation to the repayment of any debt to be incurred under the VET FEE-HELP scheme arising from the provision of services;
ii) any requirements the RTO requires the learner to meet to enter and successfully complete their chosen training product; and
iii) any materials and equipment that the learner must provide; and
iv) information on the implications for the learner of government training entitlements and subsidy arrangements in relation to the delivery of the services.
What is this clause about:
Following on from clause 5.1, this clause specifies the minimum information requirements that must be provided to prospective learner prior to their enrolment or commencement to inform them about the services being provided. This clause equally relates to consumer protection and focuses on ensuring that learners are provided with sufficient and accurate information to inform their consumer decisions.
There is a close relationship between the requirements in this clause and the requirements relating to marketing specified in clause 4.1. Marketing information will constitute the primary content that informs this clause. Noting this, there are other important information sources that will also be applicable. These include fee information, learner or participant handbooks, et cetera. Some of the requirements within this clause may not be applicable to many RTO’s such as those relating to the VET FEE-HELP or VET Student Loan scheme.
You must be able to demonstrate that:
You provide the prospective learner prior to their enrolment or commencement with detailed information about the services being provided. This information may be provided in print, electronically or through referral to other information sources.
You accurately describe the services being provided including the training product code and title, estimated course duration, location of delivery, the mode of delivery, work placement requirements and a broad outline of the course structure.
You disclose any details of third parties including where services are provided on the RTO’s behalf and where you are delivering services on behalf of another RTO.
You provide a declaration that identifies who (which RTO) is responsible for the quality of the training and assessment services being provided and for the issuance of any AQF certificates.
You provide information that informs the learner about their rights and obligations including complaints and appeals processes, the materials and equipment the learner must provide, requirements to successfully complete their chosen training, obligations under any relevant government subsidy and the learner’s rights if the services are not delivered.
Evidence to prepare:
Enrollment process that confirms learners are provided information about rights and obligations prior to their enrollment.
Learner handbook or other information source that informs learners of their rights and obligations. This may include course brochures or other marketing information.
Mechanism for obtaining a formal acknowledgement from the learner that they have been informed about their rights and obligations. This may be part of the learner’s signed service agreement with the RTO where they agree to the RTO’s terms and conditions.
Student information about government subsidy eligibility, obligations and entitlements
You should prepare for these types of questions:
Can you explain the process for enrollment and how learners are informed about their rights and obligations?
What documents do you use to communicate this information?
What do you define as the learners’ rights and obligations?
How do you confirm that the learner understands their rights and obligations?
How do you ensure staff are informed about the learner’s rights and obligations?
Can I see the information source (Learner Handbook) where all this information is contained?
Can I see some learner files where learners have signed to acknowledge their rights and obligations?
How do you inform the learner about the course duration and mode of delivery?
Can you show me where the learner is informed about who (which RTO) is ultimately responsible for the quality of training and assessment services and for the issuance of the AQF certificate on their course completion?
This course is delivered using a government subsidy. These subsidies have eligibility criteria and include implications for the learner in relation to gaining access to the subsidy. How is this information communicated to the learner prior to their enrolment or commencement?
Published by: Joe Newbery, released 2nd May 2017
© Newbery Consulting 2017
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 5.1
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 5.1
What the clause requires:
5.1. Prior to enrolment or the commencement of training and assessment, whichever comes first, the RTO provides advice to the prospective learner about the training product appropriate to meeting the learner’s needs, taking into account the individual’s existing skills and competencies.
What is this clause about:
This clause is about consumer protection. You are a service provider and the learner is a consumer. When you consider this clause, you need to do so in conjunction with the requirements of Australian Consumer Law. I absolutely recommend that all RTO chief executives and managers become familiar with the information contained at the Australian Consumer Law website (click).
This clause requires that the RTO take active steps to engage with the prospective learner to inform them very clearly about the services being provided and to ensure that the RTO has determined the learner’s needs and directed them to a course that is suitable to meet their needs. RTO’s should think of this requirement as a mini training needs analysis of the learner. The RTO should have specified enrolment procedures that detail the process to channel prospective learners through an engagement process and information pathway to ensure their needs are identified and they are provided with detailed and accurate information to inform their decisions about enrolment. It may be the case that once the RTO has determined the learner’s needs, the RTO may conclude that they do not have the services to meet the specific learner requirements. In this case, it is a valid outcome to refer the prospective learner to another RTO. RTO’s should not enroll a learner into a course for their own benefit where it is not consistent with the learners training needs. I know that’s an obvious statement, but you would be amazed!
You must be able to demonstrate that:
You engage with learners prior to their enrolment to determine their training needs and provide them accurate and detailed information about the services being offered.
You take into account the learner’s existing skills and competency and have arrangements to determine the amount of training for each learner and apply recognition processes where applicable.
Evidence to prepare:
Details of the RTO’s enrolment procedure including policy or forms used to quality assure the process.
Access to the learner records where learner engagement may be verified and training needs are recorded.
Evidence of the arrangements to engage with learners prior to their enrolment and to provide accurate and detailed information about the services being offered.
You should prepare for these types of questions:
Can you talk me through your process to engage with learners prior to their enrolment and to determine their training needs?
Can you talk me through how you take into account the learner’s existing skills and competency?
Can we access learner records to verify this process being applied?
Published by: Joe Newbery, released 2nd May 2017
© Newbery Consulting 2017
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 4.1
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 4.1
What the clause requires:
4.1. Information, whether disseminated directly by the RTO or on its behalf, is both accurate and factual, and:
a) accurately represents the services it provides and the training products on its scope of registration;
b) includes its RTO Code;
c) refers to another person or organisation in its marketing material only if the consent of that person or organisation has been obtained;
d) uses the NRT Logo only in accordance with the conditions of use specified in Schedule 4;
e) makes clear where a third-party is recruiting prospective learners for the RTO on its behalf;
f) distinguishes where it is delivering training and assessment on behalf of another RTO or where training and assessment is being delivered on its behalf by a third-party;
g) distinguishes between nationally recognised training and assessment leading to the issuance of AQF certification documentation from any other training or assessment delivered by the RTO;
h) includes the code and title of any training product, as published on the National Register, referred to in that information;
i) only advertises or markets a non-current training product while it remains on the RTO’s scope of registration;
j) only advertises or markets that a training product it delivers will enable learners to obtain a licensed or regulated outcome where this has been confirmed by the industry regulator in the jurisdiction in which it is being advertised;
k) includes details about any VET FEE-HELP, government funded subsidy or other financial support arrangements associated with the RTO’s provision of training and assessment; and
l) does not guarantee that:
i) a learner will successfully complete a training product on its scope of registration; or
ii) a training product can be completed in a manner which does not meet the requirements of Clause 1.1 and 1.2; or
iii) a learner will obtain a particular employment outcome where this is outside the control of the RTO.
What is this clause about:
This clause requires the RTO to provide clear, current and accurate information about your training organisation and the training and assessment services you provide. This clause is all about ensuring that your prospective learners or third-parties are well-informed about the services you provide prior to their enrolment or commencement, whichever comes first. This relates to all marketing information including that which is printed, provided by your website, provided via third-party’s website, provided via social media, direct marketing or online directories. The clause is quite clearly stated and is one of the less subjective clauses within the standards. Where RTO’s get in trouble with this is because they try to be tricky or try to push the envelope in attempting to get some market advantage in their advertising and marketing. It blows me away when I am doing an audit and the RTO does not include the training product code and title on their website or fails to include the RTO code on marketing information. It specifies these requirements in black-and-white in the clearest of terms within this clause. There is no logical excuse why an RTO does not comply with this requirement other than ignorance and/or apathy. ASQA has provided an excellent fact sheet that provides additional guidance to RTO’s about the requirements relating to marketing and advertising (click).
Note. A benchmark for the auditor during the review of marketing information is the organisation’s training and assessment strategy. The first criteria the auditor reviews are to determine if the information is accurate and represents the services provided by the RTO. The points of comparison for the marketing information are the training and assessment strategy which should describe how training products are being delivered, the learner records including training plans and learning and assessment materials. These items (but predominantly the training and assessment strategy) are the actual evidence of how the services are being delivered. When the auditor reviews the accuracy of the marketing, these documents are the benchmark to compare if the information accurately represents the services provided.
Take-home point: Make sure that training and assessment strategies and marketing are in alignment.
You must be able to demonstrate that:
Your marketing information accurately reflects the services you are providing and this can be confirmed through access to learner records and training and assessment strategies.
Your marketing information includes your RTO code and the approved code and title of all training products as they appear on the national training register (training.gov.au).
If you refer to any other person or organisation in your marketing then you have evidence of a written consent to do so.
You use the NRT Logo in marketing in accordance with its conditions of use (click).
You distinguish clearly between non-accredited training services and nationally recognised training services (keep them very separate).
You disclose the details of third-parties where they are delivering on your behalf or you are delivering on their behalf.
You provide detailed information to learners about relevant licensing or regulatory requirements applicable to the course being offered.
You provide detailed information to learners about relevant government funding or subsidy programs applicable to the courses being offered.
You do not guarantee any specific outcome such as employment, course completion, etc. Don’t make claims that are outside of your control. Be ethical.
Evidence to prepare:
Copy of current course brochures, newspaper advertising, etc
Access to the organisations current website, social media campaigns, online directories, etc
Access to third-party websites (or other marketing information) who are advertising training and assessment services on behalf of the RTO
It should be noted that all marketing material must include all items identified at clause 4.1 subparagraphs a – l, where they are applicable to the RTO.
Note. Prior to an audit, conduct a critical review of all marketing information to ensure that the items specified within clause 4.1 are being complied with. This review should include marketing information of third-parties.
You should prepare for these types of questions:
Are you engaged in any third-party arrangements?
Which courses on your scope of registration are offered via refunding or government subsidy arrangement?
What media/format do you utilise to conduct advertising and marketing? Can you provide me an example of these for following courses please?
What is your process for developing and approving marketing material before it is used?
Can you show me in this marketing where the RTO code is included?
We need to confirm that the course model described in this marketing accurately reflects the services being provided. Are we able to access the training and assessment strategy for this course?
Can you show me the disclosure of your third parties that the courses being offered are using your scope of registration?
You are making a reference here to this industry peak body, can you provide me evidence that you have obtained their consent to do this?
Do you utilise any checklist or quality control document to ensure the compliance of marketing before it is relied on?
Published by: Joe Newbery, released 2nd May 2017
© Newbery Consulting 2017
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 3.6
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 3.6
What the clause requires:
3.6. The RTO meets the requirements of the Student Identifier scheme, including:
a) verifying with the Registrar, a Student Identifier provided to it by an individual before using that Student Identifier for any purpose;
b) ensuring that it will not issue AQF certification documentation to an individual without being in receipt of a verified Student Identifier for that individual, unless an exemption applies under the Student Identifiers Act 2014;
c) ensuring that where an exemption described in Clause 3.6 (b) applies, it will inform the student prior to either the completion of the enrolment or commencement of training and assessment, whichever occurs first, that the results of the training will not be accessible through the Commonwealth and will not appear on any authenticated VET transcript prepared by the Registrar; and
d) ensuring the security of Student Identifiers and all related documentation under its control, including information stored in its student management systems.
What is this clause about:
This clause requires the RTO to comply with the requirements of the Student Identifiers Act 2014. Introduced in January 2015, this legislation requires that all learners awarded a nationally recognised outcome must hold a valid Unique Student Identifier. To understand the USI requirements, visit the following site and read everything: https://www.usi.gov.au/training-organisations. Most student management systems have an inbuilt capability to verified and create a learners USI. The learner and the RTO can also undertake these functions on the USI system if they are registered to do so. The key things that will be subject to review during a regulatory audit are: That you inform learners about their USI obligation (including exemptions) prior to their enrolment, that you apply a process to collect and verify a learner’s USI, that no AQF certificates are issued without verifying the learner’s USI and that you apply suitable security arrangements to protect access to a learner’s USI information.
A little-known fact is that the USI under the Student Identifiers Act 2014 is categorised as sensitive information as defined in the Australian Privacy Principles. The USI is classed as biometric information that is to be used for certain purposes. The RTO has a legal obligation to ensure that the learner’s USI is never distributed to unauthorised persons and its access within the RTO is closely restricted only to those who are authorised and have a need to access the information. Read more about the learner’s Privacy and the Unique Student Identifier at the following link (click).
You must be able to demonstrate that:
You provide information to prospective learners (prior to enrolment) about their obligation to hold a USI and of relevant exemptions that may apply
You provide information to prospective learners (prior to enrolment) on how the learner can access an authenticated VET transcript from USI system that details their achievements (click)
You have a process to verified the USI either on the USI system or within your student management system before it is relied on to issue AQF certificates
You have appropriate security arrangements to protect the privacy of learners and prevent unauthorised access to the learner’s USI details
Evidence to prepare:
Evidence of pre-enrolment information provided to the learner that informs them about their rights and obligations regarding the USI
Evidence of how the organisation collects a USI from a learner
Evidence of how the organisation creates or verifies a USI on behalf of the learner during the enrolment process
Evidence of how USI details and document verification evidence is being stored to protect the privacy of the learner
Evidence that demonstrates that the USI is not included in any AQF certificates
Access to student management system to verify that no AQF certificates have been issued without holding a valid USI
You should prepare for these types of questions:
Can you talk me through the process for informing learners about their obligation to supply a valid USI? Can you show me where this information is provided prior to enrolment?
What mechanism do you use to verified a learner’s USI? Can you show me how this works and where you keep details of the verification?
How do you protect access to the learner’s USI? Who else has access to this system?
Have you awarded any AQF certificates since January 2015 without holding a valid USI of the learner? Can we access learner records in your student management system in March/April 2015 to verify this?
Published by: Joe Newbery, released 2nd May 2017
© Newbery Consulting 2017
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 3.5
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 3.5
What the clause requires:
3.5 The RTO accepts and provides credit to learners for units of competency and/or modules (unless licensing or regulatory requirements prevent this) where these are evidenced by: a) AQF certification documentation issued by any other RTO or AQF authorised issuing organisation; or b) authenticated VET transcripts issued by the Registrar.
What is this clause about:
This clause is about the recognition of outcomes issued by other RTOs. Our National Skills Framework is relatively unique in the world. Over the last 20 years, we have been building this wonderful framework of nationally recognised qualifications, accredited courses, skill sets and units of competency. We have a system to approve providers the ability to train, assess and award these nationally recognised outcomes. A cornerstone of our system is the concept of mutual recognition. A learner can be issued a unit of competency in Darwin and that outcome is as equally valuable in Adelaide. This is because for RTO’s have a statutory obligation to recognise the outcomes issued by other RTO’s. Colloquially, this is referred to as credit transfer. It is common to also hear people refer to this as “national recognition”.
The common misunderstanding with credit transfer is that it is somehow linked with recognition of prior learning. RPL is assessment and has nothing to do with the process of credit transfer. Credit transfer is administrative process where a learner seeks credit for units of competency they have previously achieved and the RTO determines if these units of competency are equivalent to the units of competency they are offering in the course. If the units are equivalent then the relevant units of competency are issued as a credit transfer. The RTO will retain the evidence that it relied on to issue a credit transfer outcome. This will typically be an AQF certificate and should always be certified as a true copy. It is quite critical that the RTO can produce this evidence at a regulatory audit when requested to do so.
You must be able to demonstrate that:
You inform learners of their opportunity to seek credit transfer for units of competency previously achieved
You recognise the outcomes issued by other RTO’s and do not discourage students from seeking a credit transfer
You retain evidence that was relied on to issue a credit transfer
Evidence to prepare:
Policy or procedure applied by the organisation to handle credit transfer applications
Information provided to learners (Learner Handbook) that informs them of the opportunity to apply for credit transfer and the requirements for this.
An example of a unit of competency being awarded as a credit transfer and the retained evidence that was relied on to demonstrate existing competency.
An example of a unit of competency being awarded as a credit transfer where the unit codes and titles were different and equivalency was established through confirmation on the national training register.
Credit transfer application forms that systemise the application process and enable quality checks to be conducted prior to issuance being awarded.
You should prepare for these types of questions:
Can you provide a recent example of where you have issued a credit transfer to a learner?
Can you talk me through the process for handling these applications?
Can you talk me through how you determine equivalency when the units of competency code and title are not the same?
How do you inform learners of the opportunity to seek credit transfer for units of competency previously achieved?
Published by: Joe Newbery, released 2nd May 2017
© Newbery Consulting 2017
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 3.4
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 3.4
What the clause requires:
3.4 Records of learner AQF certification documentation are maintained by the RTO in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 5 and are accessible to current and past learners.
What is this clause about:
This clause is about ensuring that as an RTO you can provide current learners with access to their AQF records which includes details of their current progression in the course they are enrolled. It also requires that past learner can request and receive a re-issued or replacement certificate based on the course which they have completed. Schedule 5 of the RTO standards also requires that the RTO maintain a register of all qualifications and statements of attainment issued. In reality, this register is the RTO’s student management system which should be capable of producing a report over any given timeframe of statements of attainment and qualifications it has issued. Some auditors tend to apply their personal preferences about what shape and form this “register’ should take. There is no definition or specification in the RTO standards or the AQF so this requirement is quite subjective. I recommend that it be detailed and able to be printed in a hard copy format. The critical information is the learner’s details, the qualification or units of competency they achieved and the date of achievement.
A good question to ask in considering this clause is how you would issue a learner who is currently enrolled with a report on the outcomes they have achieved and they are enrolled in. RTO’s have many and varied answers to this question and in their arrangements to report this information. There is technically no guidance to specify how this should occur. The best advice that I can provide and what has been a successful approach for over a decade is to issue the currently enrolled learner with a record of results. The record of results is recognised within the AQF but when issued independently from the qualification it is not an official AQF certificate but is more an administrative record that reports the current stage of the learner’s progression. Most student management systems have the capability to produce a record of results for are currently enrolled learner.
You must be able to demonstrate that:
You maintain a register of all statements of attainment and qualifications issued
You retain records of AQF outcomes issued for a period of 30 years.
You can issue current learners with a record of their results or transcript
You can issue past learners with a replacement AQF certificate
you manage AQF records with integrity and accuracy
Evidence to prepare:
Access to learner records relating to AQF outcomes issued.
Access to the student management system to verify outcomes appearing on sampled AQF certificates.
A register of all statements of attainments issued
A register of AQF qualifications issued
Can verify that all AQF outcome records are retained for a period of 30 years. The auditor may choose to request records of outcomes the RTO issued in the first year of the registration to verify this.
Evidence of the arrangements to issue a past or current learner with a replacement certificate or a record of results detailing the learner’s current progression.
You should prepare for these types of questions:
Can you show me in your student management system how you can produce a register of all statements of attainment and qualification is issued?
I see that you were initially registered in 2003. Are you able to access the data of your issued AQF outcomes from this period?
Do you have any policy and procedure around record management relating to the retention of your AQF records for 30 years?
Are you able to provide me an example of how you have reissued an AQF certificate to a past learner?
If a learner’s employer requested that the learner obtain a record from the RTO that details their current stage of progression, how would you report this?
Published by: Joe Newbery, released 2nd May 2017
© Newbery Consulting 2017
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 3.3
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 3.3
What the clause requires:
3.3 AQF certification documentation is issued to a learner within 30 calendar days of the learner being assessed as meeting the requirements of the training product if the training program in which the learner is enrolled is complete, and providing all agreed fees the learner owes to the RTO have been paid.
What is this clause about:
This clause is about ensuring that your AQF certificates are issued within 30 days from the date the student is assessed as competent in their final unit of competency. This clause is quite easily audited. The auditor would have usually sampled a range of learner records during their audit of 1.8. They will utilise these records and may select others to simply check the date of the learner’s final assessment of competency against the date the learner was issued there AQF certificate. Keep in mind that there are 2 reasons why an RTO is not obliged to meet this requirement. The first is that the learner has not paid the RTO the fees for the course. The second reason is that the RTO has not been provided or able to verify the learner’s Unique Student Identifier. It is a civil offence for the RTO to issue an AQF certificate without first verifying the learner’s Unique Student Identifier. Most auditors will want to see some policy, procedure or workflow that demonstrates how the organisation meets this requirement. This procedure might put specific time frames around milestones required to be met before the certificate can be issued. An example of this is requiring assessment records to be returned to the office within a minimum timeframe or results being entered into the student management system again within a minimum timeframe. Ultimately the most valid form of evidence in relation to this clause is the outcome of issuing AQF certificates within the 30 calendar days.
You must be able to demonstrate that:
You issue all AQF certificates within 30 calendar days from the date the student is assessed as competent in their final unit of competency.
You have a process or procedure to quality assure this.
Evidence to prepare:
Learner records where evidence of assessment decisions and the date they were made are available.
Sample AQF certificates where the date issued can be compared with the last date the learner was assessed as competent in the enrolled course
Policy and procedure that describes the process to generate and issue AQF certificates within 30 days from the date the learner was assessed as competent.
You should prepare for these types of questions:
Can you talk me through your process to award certificates within 30 calendar days?
Can you provide me the details of the qualification issued to the following learners please?
Can you provide the learner records for the following learners please?
Can we access these learner’s records within the student management system and compare the date of their final assessment with the certificate issuance date?
Published by: Joe Newbery, released 2nd May 2017
© Newbery Consulting 2017
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 3.2
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 3.2
What the clause requires:
3.2 All AQF certification documentation issued by an RTO meets the requirements of Schedule 5.
What is this clause about:
This clause is about ensuring that the format of your qualification certificates, statement of attainment certificates and record of results comply with the requirements of schedule 5 of the RTO standards and the requirement specified within the Australian Qualifications Framework. The trouble with these documents is that they are vague and extremely open to interpretation. In our experience the RTO’s well advised to strictly follow the example provided by ASQA in the following document: Fact sheet—Sample AQF documentation. You are also recommended to review the frequently asked questions section relating to Testamurs and Statements of Attainment: AQF Frequently Asked Questions and the AQF Qualifications Issuance Policy.
These documents combined, layout the rules and format for issuing AQF certificates. The Sample AQF documents includes little details such as on the qualification it says, “This is to certify that” as opposed to the statement of attainment which says “this is a statement that”. Now, these are not mandatory words within schedule 5 or the AQF; however, we have experienced auditors making RTO’s non-compliant for these types of things where the RTO’s certificate is not in accordance with the fact sheet supplied by ASQA.
Take-home point: Ensure your certificates align with the ASQA fact sheet.
The AQF also makes it mandatory for the RTO to implement measures that would prevent the fraudulent production of their certificates. There are many ways of doing this and this also is a major area of auditor subjectivity. We try and encourage clients to issue their certificates in hard copy format and where possible physically sign each certificate. Documents which are digitally signed and issued electronically are highly prone to fraudulent reproduction. Examples of measures to prevent fraudulent production include, unique certificate number, unique student number, physical signature, unique water mark, document embossing, digital encryption, et cetera.
You must be able to demonstrate that:
Your qualification format (including the record of results) complies with the requirements of the AQF and schedule 5 of the RTO standards
Your statement of attainment format complies with the requirements of the AQF and schedule 5 of the RTO standards
You apply mechanisms to prevent the fraudulent production of your certificates.
You do not include the learner’s Unique Student Identifier on any AQF certificate
Evidence to prepare:
Sample Statement of Attainment issued within the last 6 months
Sample Qualification with a Record of Results issued within the last 6 months
Access to learner records relating to AQF outcomes issued.
Access to the student management system to verify outcomes appearing on sampled AQF certificates.
Can verify that the Unique Student Identifier is not included on any statement of attainment, qualification or record of results.
You should prepare for these types of questions:
Can you provide me a copy of the statement of attainment issued to the following learner please?
Can you provide me a copy of the qualification certificate issued to the following learner please?
Can you talk me through how the certificate is raised and authorised?
What mechanisms have you implemented to prevent the fraudulent production of your certificates?
Published by: Joe Newbery, released 2nd May 2017
© Newbery Consulting 2017
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 3.1
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 3.1
What the clause requires:
3.1 The RTO issues AQF certification documentation only to a learner whom it has assessed as meeting the requirements of the training product as specified in the relevant training package or VET accredited course.
What is this clause about:
This clause is about ensuring that you have suitable controls or mechanisms to ensure that assessments which are not conducted properly or are insufficiently recorded, not signed, etc are captured before they are entered into the student management system and relied on for the issuance of any nationally recognised outcomes. Every record of assessment that the RTO receives should be channeled through administration area where it is reviewed for its completeness and detail. If the record is not accurate or sufficiently detailed, it should be returned to the assessor for additional work before it is accepted. I frequently remind clients that if these records get through administration and into the learner file, the next person to see that record will be an auditor. Do not allow trainers to input assessment results into the student management system.
As a consequence of the requirements of this clause, the accuracy of your assessment records also becomes relevant. It is critical that your assessment evidence is sufficiently detailed and accurate and the information such as the assessment date entered into the student management system corresponds with the hard copy record. Do not allow your student management system to default to the date the result was entered. Your administrative staff should correct this and ensure that the date entered is the date of assessment that appears on the hard copy record.
You must be able to demonstrate that:
You haven’t suitable controls to ensure that only valid assessments which are properly recorded are accepted by the organisation before they are entered into a student management system
The details recorded within your student management system are in alignment with the retained student assessment items which verify assessment decisions.
Evidence to prepare:
Evidence of how the organisation ensures that its AQF certificates are only issued to persons who have been validly assessed as competent. This may include:
- Evidence that assessment decisions are recorded properly and signed for by a qualified trainer assessor
- Evidence of a quality review of assessment records as they are received to ensure they have been properly completed with the correct learner details, course details, sufficient assessment evidence and are signed
- Evidence that outcomes are correctly entered into a student management system with the relevant details including the date of the assessment decision
You should prepare for these types of questions:
What arrangements do you apply to prevent assessments which are not properly completed from being accepted for the issuance of a unit of competency?
Can you provide me the following student records please and can we get access to these student’s outcomes in your student management system?
For this student, I need to see the assessment decision record relating to the 3 assessment tasks identified within your assessment plan and the record of where the student was signed off as competent. I would like to now check this assessment date within the student management system.
Published by: Joe Newbery, released 2nd May 2017
© Newbery Consulting 2017
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 2.3/2.4
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 2.3/2.4
What the clause requires:
2.3 The RTO ensures that where services are provided on its behalf by a third-party the provision of those services is the subject of a written agreement.
2.4 The RTO has sufficient strategies and resources to systematically monitor any services delivered on its behalf, and uses these to ensure that the services delivered comply with these Standards at all times.
What is this clause about:
These clauses are simply about the requirement to have in place a written agreement with third parties and sufficient strategies to monitor the services being delivered on the RTO’s behalf. What is third-party? A third-party that is applicable under this clause is any organisation that is delivering services on behalf of an RTO using the RTO’s scope of registration. These services can include training and assessment services, education support services and activities relating to the recruitment of prospective learners. For more guidance on determining what constitutes an “education support service” as a third-party arrangement, please refer to this recent post (click). Note, that the use of contract trainers is not considered by the regulator to be a third-party arrangement. To understand the third-party arrangements, I strongly recommend that you read the “Third-party arrangements” fact sheet from ASQA (click).
Ok, what is a written agreement? Well the above fact sheet explains this. Just be aware that there are some mandatory inclusions required by ASQA in third-party agreements. These are specified in standard 8, so refer to that section for details. The point to stress here is the need to ensure there is a current and valid written agreement and that it includes the details of the monitoring arrangements you have established to ensure that the third-party delivers services in accordance with your obligations specified within the RTO standards. Depending on the services being provided and the complexity of the third-party arrangement, monitoring arrangements can take many forms. Some examples of monitoring arrangements include mandating the use of learning and assessment materials, conducting site visits, restricting the third-party’s operation to approved sites and trainers only, restrictions on advertising, internal audits, etc. The more complex the third-party arrangement and the higher risk presented by the arrangement should result in more robust monitoring of the third-party’s activities.
If you have a written agreement that specifies the monitoring arrangements then you should be compliant with clause 2.3; however, if you have not implemented those monitoring arrangements or cannot provide evidence of the arrangements being implemented then you will be non-compliant with clause 2.4.
You must be able to demonstrate that:
You have a written and signed agreement for all third-party arrangements that you are engaged in.
You have appreciated the risk and complexity of each third-party arrangement and have established suitable monitoring arrangements within the agreement and can demonstrate that you have implemented these.
Evidence to prepare:
Partnership or third-party agreements for each third-party currently engaged.
Details of the monitoring arrangements for each third-party.
Evidence of monitoring arrangements being applied including monitoring of marketing activities, training and assessment quality, trainer assessor competency currency, etc. It is recommended that this evidence be documentary. For example:
- if you have specified a monitoring arrangements for the third-party only to use trainers to you have approved, then it would be reasonable for you to have a list of those trainers and evidence of their competency and currency.
- if your monitoring arrangement includes the requirement for site visits to the third-party sites, then it would be reasonable for you to produce site visit reports or evidence that these site visits have been undertaking.
- If your monitoring arrangement includes the conduct of monthly management meetings with third-parties, then it would be reasonable for you to have a record or minutes of these meetings.
Learner records that pertain to the services being delivered by third-parties.
Records of outcomes issued such as qualifications and statements of attainment pertaining to services being delivered by third-parties.
You should prepare for these types of questions:
Are you engaged in any third-party arrangements where others are delivering services on your behalf as an RTO?
Can you provide me the written agreement for these third-party arrangements please?
Have you notified ASQA of these third-party arrangements? Can I see the email receipt for these notifications please?
What monitoring arrangements are you applying to ensure the quality of training and assessment?
Can I see evidence of these monitoring arrangements being applied?
Can I have a list of all the qualifications or units of competence that have been issued under the third-party arrangement along with the details of the applicable learners?
Can I please see the following learner files relating to the third-party arrangement?
How do you monitor the advertising that the partner undertakes on behalf of you all registration?
How did you determine the sufficiency of the monitoring arrangements for this third-party agreement?
Published by: Joe Newbery, released 2nd May 2017
© Newbery Consulting 2017
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 2.2
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 2.2
What the clause requires:
2.2. The RTO:
a) systematically monitors the RTO’s training and assessment strategies and practices to ensure ongoing compliance with Standard 1; and
b) systematically evaluates and uses the outcomes of the evaluations to continually improve the RTO’s training and assessment strategies and practices. Evaluation information includes but is not limited to quality/performance indicator data collected under Clause 7.5, validation outcomes, client, trainer and assessor feedback and complaints and appeals.
What is this clause about:
This clause requires the RTO to systematically collect and evaluate relevant information within its operation in order to monitor the quality and compliance of the training and assessment being delivered in accordance with standard 1. Sub-clause 2.2 (b) is very specific about information that is identified to be collected and analysed by the RTO. ASQA have included these specific items within its audit tool and the auditor will go through each one individually to check how the RTO is collecting the particular item of information and if opportunities for improvement have been identified and acted on as a result of analysis. So, this clause is simply about demonstrating that you are monitoring the quality and compliance of training and assessment and are continually improving it. Easy!
You must be able to demonstrate that:
You have a systematic approach to how you collect and analyse information in order to identify and act on opportunities for improvement.
You have made improvements based on the collection and analysis of learner and employer survey responses
You have made improvements based on your assessment validation activities and outcomes
You have made improvements based on the feedback you receive from your staff and learners
You have made improvements based on your handling and resolution of complaints and appeals
Evidence to prepare:
A documented continuous improvement (or quality improvement) policy that supports a “systematic approach” to continuous improvement such as the PDCA model. These models are quite useless unless they are integrated with the management systems of the organisation. I strongly recommend that your approach to continuous improvement is implemented as a component (agenda item) of your regular management meeting.
Examples of specific data (information) that is being systematically collected and analysed as an input to the continuous approach such as:
- Rate of completion
- learner and employer satisfaction survey outcomes
- assessment validation outcomes
- feedback from trainers and assessors
- Feedback from learners
- outcomes from complaints and appeals handling
A continuous improvement register that demonstrates active use in the implementation and monitoring of improvement actions throughout the year is valuable.
Specific examples of continuous improvement actions that were identified through analysis of information and have been implemented. Particularly focus on improvements that have resulted based on the collection and analysis of the above information.
Documentary evidence of opportunities for improvement being implemented. So, if a complaint resulted in an adjustment to the completions process, for example, then showing a revised completions policy or checklist would be valid evidence of continuous improvement.
You should prepare for these types of questions:
Can you talk me through your arrangements to apply a continuous improvement approach to your operation?
What data are you collecting and analysing to identify opportunities for improvement?
How are you recording your continuous improvement actions so they can be monitored during their implementation?
Do you have documented policy, procedure or forms that support your implementation of your continuous improvement arrangements?
How do you make decisions about improvements? Is it conducted as part of your management meeting or do you have a separate forum that gets together specifically to look at continuous improvement? Do you involve other staff in decision making?
Can you show me examples of improvements to training and assessment?
Have any improvements resulted from your collection and review of learner survey responses?
Are you able to identify any improvements that have resulted from your assessment validation activities?
How do you collect feedback from your trainers and assessors? Is this resulted in any improvement opportunities?
Have you needed to respond to any complaints in the past 12 months? Has this resulted in any opportunities for improvement?
Published by: Joe Newbery, released 2nd May 2017
© Newbery Consulting 2017
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 2.1
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 2.1
What the clause requires:
2.1 The RTO ensures it complies with these Standards at all times, including where services are being delivered on its behalf. This applies to all operations of an RTO within its scope of registration.
What is this clause about:
This clause simply requires your RTO to be compliant with all of the other clauses within the Standards for Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) 2015. So, if you are found non-compliant on any other clause or standard then 2.1 will also be non-compliant. Happy days!
You must be able to demonstrate that:
Your RTO is compliant with all Standards for Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) 2015.
Evidence to prepare:
Training and Assessment Strategies – Clause 1.1
Pathway for individual learning plan – Clause 1.2
Availability of resources in support of services – Clause 1.3
Training package alignment – Clause 1.4
Industry engagement – Clause 1.5-1.6
Learner support services – Clause 1.7
Assessment arrangements – Clause 1.8
Assessment validation arrangements – Clause 1.9-1.11
Trainer assessor competency/currency – Clause 1.13-1.24
Transition arrangements – Clause 1.26-1.27
Quality improvement – Clause 2.2
Third-party agreements and monitoring – Clause 2.3-2.4
Issuing AQF certificates – Clause 3.1-3.4
Credit transfer arrangements – Clause 3.5
USI collection / verification / protection – Clause 3.6
Marketing arrangements – Clause 4
Pre-enrolment information arrangements – Clause 5
Handling of complaints and appeals – Clause 6
Governance and administration arrangements – Clause 7
Cooperation with ASQA and legislative compliance – Clause 8
You should prepare for these types of questions:
Refer to all other clauses for questions in support of this clause.
Published by: Joe Newbery, released 2nd May 2017
© Newbery Consulting 2017
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 1.26/1.27
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 1.26/1.27
What the clause requires:
1.26 The RTO ensures that:
a) learners enrolled in superseded training products which have been replaced are completed within a period of one year;
b) learners enrolled in superseded training products which are not replaced are completed within a period of two years;
c) learners enrolled in superseded skill set, unit of competency, accredited short course or module which are not replaced are completed within a period of one year;
d) a new learner does not commence training and assessment in a training product that has been removed or deleted from the National Register.
1.27. The requirements specified in Clause 1.26 (a) do not apply where a training package requires the delivery of a superseded unit of competency.
What is this clause about:
These clauses provide the upper level framework to guide the actions the RTO takes when a training product on its scope of registration is superseded or removed from the National Training Register. The last bit of that sentence is fairly important because it is critical to understand that some training products are superseded and are replaced by a new training product and some are superseded but not replaced. What is a training product I hear you asking? The standards (within the glossary) define a training product as follows: Training Product means AQF qualification, skill set, unit of competency, accredited short course and module.
Ok, so here is where it gets confusing. If the training product is replaced you have one year to either finish off the learner or transition them to the new training product. If the training product is not replaced and is simply superseded (and is a qualification), then you have two years to finish off the learner in the superseded training product. However, if the training product is a skill set, unit of competency, accredited short course (and is superseded and not replaced) then you have twelve months to complete the learner. Clear as mud! Now 1.26d is very basic. You simply cannot commence a learner in a training product that has been removed or deleted from the National Training Register. Training products that have been replaced will remain on your scope of registration during the transition period and you are able to take new enrolments in the training product whilst it is on your scope of registration however this is not recommended. Sometimes it is necessary for a period of time but the RTO should try to get the new qualification on the scope as soon as possible and cease enrolments into superseded training product. With a twelve-month transition period ticking down you are only digging a hole for yourself and the learner by enrolling them into a superseded training products late in the transition.
Now, in respect of clause 1.27, this is a very misunderstood requirement. Essentially it means that if you have a qualification on your scope of registration and it is current but has units of competency in the qualification that are imported from other training packages, then you must continue to deliver imported units, even if they have been superseded in their home training package. It doesn’t matter that it is superseded. It is current in the qualification and that is what you must deliver.
Please note: When considering these clauses, you must read the following ASQA general direction in conjunction with this guide: General Direction—Learner transition
You must be able to demonstrate that:
You are aware of training products on your scope of registration that have been superseded and are currently in transition.
You have considered the impact on the transition to learners who are currently enrolled and determined what affect the superseded training product has in terms of options for credit transfer or the necessity for gap training and assessment where the units of competency are not equivalent.
You have implemented the arrangements to add the new training product onto your scope of registration where this is required.
You have established a plan to cease enrolments in superseded training products and commence enrolments in new training products.
You have updated your marketing information to inform prospective learners of the training product currency.
Evidence to prepare:
Evidence of mapping the old and new training product to establish the equivalence and non-equivalence units.
Correspondence provided to learners informing them of how a transition will affect their enrolment and presenting them with options to complete their course.
Strategies to manage learners at risk of not completing their course within the transition period.
Subscription to information sources (TGA) to inform you of changes.
Learner records of learners affected by a superseded training product.
You should prepare for these types of questions:
Can you explain the arrangements being applied to manage the transition between training products that have been superseded?
Can you talk me through your arrangements to teach-out learners who are enrolled in superseded training products?
Have you determined the credit transfer arrangements between the two training products and how this will impact on currently enrolled learners?
Have you issued correspondence to currently enrolled learners informing them of the superseded training product and how this will impact them?
Have you identified any learners that you consider are at risk of not completing a training product within the transition period?
Can you provide me the following learner records who were transitioned over to the new qualification?
Published by: Joe Newbery, released 2nd May 2017
© Newbery Consulting 2017
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 1.13/1.14/1.16
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 1.13/1.14/1.16
What the clause requires:
1.13 The RTO’s training and assessment is delivered only by persons who have:
a) vocational competencies at least to the level being delivered and assessed;
b) current industry skills directly relevant to the training and assessment being provided; and
c) current knowledge and skills in vocational training and learning that informs their training and assessment.
1.14 The RTO’s training and assessment is delivered only by persons who have the training and assessment qualification (refer to schedule 1)
1.16 The RTO ensures that all trainers and assessors undertake professional development in the fields of the knowledge and practice of vocational training, learning and assessment including competency based training and assessment.
What is this clause about:
These clauses are about making sure that the persons that you use to undertake training and assessment are competent in training and assessment and are competent in the unit of competency they are delivering training and assessment in. The requirement for training and assessment competency is specified within schedule one of the standards Click Here. In a nut shell, this means that trainers and assessors need to hold the complete TAE40110 Certificate IV in Training and Assessment (no allowance for equivalence) or its successor (TAE40116) or a diploma or higher level qualification in adult education. For trainers delivering TAE qualifications and skill sets, additional requirements apply. Refer to schedule one of the standards.
The requirement for vocational competency is a little more complex and subjective. The clause says: “vocational competencies at least to the level being delivered and assessed”. So, they must hold the actual competencies or be able to demonstrate that they hold equivalent competency at least to the same level. They must also be able to provide evidence of their current industry skills (checkout the RTO standards glossary for “Current Industry Skills”) and provide evidence that they are engaged in ongoing professional development in training and assessment.
So, it is not enough to simply be competent. The trainer must have evidence of their industry experience, current industry knowledge and skills and ongoing professional development. Our recommendation for “current” evidence is evidence of activity over the last 12-18 months. Hey! It is my document; I can recommend whatever I like. In my experience, currency and professional development evidence based on completed activities in the last 12 months will be considered more favorably by the auditor.
Just a little note to emphasise a point which is often overlooked: The trainer/assessor must be able to demonstrate that they have industry experience. This is specified within the definition of “Current Industry Skills”. Industry experience is often demonstrated via a CV and referees.
You must be able to demonstrate that:
Your trainers and assessors meet the minimum requirements for competency in training and assessment as specified in schedule one of the RTO standards.
Your trainers and assessors hold the vocational competencies at least to the level that they are delivering training and assessment in.
Your trainers and assessors can demonstrate their current industry skills and knowledge and ongoing professional development in training and assessment.
Evidence to prepare:
Staff matrix that shows what trainers are nominated to deliver which items (competency) on the scope of registration. This might also list the training and assessment and vocational competence for each staff member along with a summary of their recent professional development.
Professional development register that lists in detail the specific professional development the trainer has completed.
Evidence that verifies participation in the professional development claimed in the professional development register.
Professional development plan for each trainer that shows how the trainer will maintain their skills and knowledge in their vocational area of delivery and in training and assessment.
Curriculum vitae or resume that showcases the experience the trainer brings in addition to the qualifications.
Signed employment agreement or contract (Service Agreement for contractors) that confirms that the nominated trainer’s engagement.
Certified true copies of each trainer’s qualifications that aligns with the staff matrix and substantiates their competency to undertake the training and assessment they are nominated to deliver.
Any certifications required under licensing requirements such as working with children checks, police checks, high risk work licenses, etc
Evidence that demonstrates their current competence. This may include recent RPL, professional development, work placement, professional membership, special projects, conferences or workshops, etc.
A nicely formatted Staff File that includes all of this evidence and presents it in a professional and organised way.
You should prepare for these types of questions:
Can you provide me with the evidence of competency and currency for the following trainers please?
Can you talk me through how you validate a trainer’s competence, experience and suitability during their recruitment / induction?
After reviewing these learner files, I have identified the following trainers that have undertaken assessment against these units. Can you provide me their staff files please?
How do you manage the allocation of trainers/assessor to specific items on your scope of registration?
What arrangements are you applying to ensure the ongoing professional development of training staff?
What arrangements are you applying to ensure the maintenance of current competence of training staff?
Do you have an employment agreement or service contract for this trainer?
Can you show me evidence of this trainer complying with licensing requirements?
I note that this trainer is coming into contact with learners who are under the age of 18 years. Do you have a current working with children check for this trainer?
This trainer does not have the required competence according to what they have been assessing. Do you have any additional evidence that would demonstrate their equivalent competence?
I am satisfied that this trainer has the required competency, but I note that they have only recently been awarded their vocational qualification. Do you have any evidence that demonstrates their industry experience?
Published by: Joe Newbery, released 2nd May 2017
© Newbery Consulting 2017
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 1.12
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 1.12
What the clause requires:
1.12 The RTO offers recognition of prior learning to individual learners.
What is this clause about:
This clause is intended to ensure that the RTO offers prospective learners recognition of prior learning (RPL). In previous standards it was not specified that an RTO must offer RPL which resulted in many RTO’s simply adopting a policy not to do so. This clause now makes this mandatory. It should be noted that this clause is not about the sufficiency of your RPL tools and processes. These requirements are covered under clause 1.8; however, it is very common that an auditor when reviewing this clause during an audit will ask to see your RPL tools. RTO’s should be ready for this and have well developed RPL tools. It is important to note that RPL is assessment. It is no different to any other form of assessment. The same rules of evidence and principles of assessment apply. RPL simply tends to focus on evidence from the candidate’s past which may be presented in the form of documentary evidence and referees from the candidate’s current or past work experience. Of course, that is only relevant to clause 1.8 but, if the auditor requests to see your RPL tools and an example of a completed RPL assessment when they reach 1.12, don’t say you were not warned. 🙂 Note. Do not confused recognition of prior learning with credit transfer. It is a common mistake that RTO’s make. RPL is an assessment process and credit transfer is an administrative process. Credit transfer is covered under clause 3.5.
You must be able to demonstrate that:
You offer recognition of prior learning to individual learners.
You have available suitable RPL tools, resources and procedure to support the conduct of RPL.
You are undertaking RPL in accordance with training package requirements, the principles of assessment and the rules of evidence.
Evidence to prepare:
Learner Handbook which is provided to the learner prior to their enrolment and informs them about the opportunity for recognition of prior learning.
An enrolment policy and procedure that clearly identifies where the prospective learner is provided Pre-enrolment information and informed about the opportunity for RPL.
Enrolment form where the learner may have indicated if they wish to seek RPL or credit transfer.
Your RPL tools for each training product on your scope of registration – maybe!
A sampled example of an RPL assessment you have completed – maybe!
You should prepare for these types of questions:
Can you show me where you offer RPL to learners during the enrolment process?
Do you have RPL tools for the training products on your scope of registration?
Can I see an example of a recently completed recognition of prior learning and assessment?
Published by: Joe Newbery, released 2nd May 2017
© Newbery Consulting 2017
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 1.9/1.10/1.11
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 1.9/1.10/1.11
What the clause requires:
1.9 The RTO implements a plan for ongoing systematic validation of assessment practices and judgements that details: a) when assessment validation will occur; b) which training products will be validated; c) who will lead and participate in validation; and d) how the outcomes will be documented and acted upon.
1.10 Each training product is validated at least once every five years, with at least 50% of products validated within the first three years of each five year cycle taking into account the relative risks of all of the training products on the RTO’s scope of registration, including those risks identified by the VET Regulator.
1.11 For the purposes of Clause 1.9, systematic validation of an RTO’s assessment practices and judgements is undertaken by one or more persons who are not directly involved in the particular instance of delivery and assessment of the training product being validated, and who collectively have:
a) vocational competencies and current industry skills relevant to the assessment being validated;
b) current knowledge and skills in vocational teaching and learning; and
c) the training and assessment qualification or assessor skill set referred to in Item 1 or 3 of Schedule 1.
What is this clause about:
These clauses specify the requirement for the conduct of assessment validation. The standards define assessment validation as a quality review process. This is to distinguish it from a quality control process. The difference is important as a quality review process is something that is conducted whilst the item being reviewed is being actually used as opposed to a quality control process which involves undertaking a review on something before it is implemented. So, it is important to identify that the assessment validation under the model specified within these standards is conducted post implementation after the assessment has had an opportunity to be used by assessors with candidates. The standards also specify that assessment validation involves checking that the assessment produces valid, reliable, sufficient, current and authentic evidence. So it focuses the criteria for validating assessment based on the rules of evidence and two principles of assessment (validity and reliability). I personally would recommend that you also consider flexibility and fairness in your validation criteria also. It includes reviewing a statistically valid sample of the assessments. This requires you to determine how many assessments you have completed for the unit of competency being validated and then to calculate a statistically valid sample size. There are numerous sample size calculators available on the web. ASQA provide the following sample size calculator for you convenience: ASQA-validation-sample-size-calculator. Just a tip, leave the margin for error at 15%.
In the conduct of assessment validation, the clause specifies particular competency requirements for the person who is leading the validation activity. Of particular note is the requirement that this person must not have been directly involved in the particular instance of assessment which is being validated. This means that this person does not necessarily need to be external of the organisation but does need to be non-biased and independent of the assessment being validated. Your organisation will obviously need to apply assessment validation process which will result in a systematic approach being applied and the outcomes of assessment validation used to improve future assessment. We strongly recommend the following document as a fantastic model to support your conduct of assessment validation:
Maximising confidence in assessment decision-making: Resource kit for assessors
You must be able to demonstrate that:
You must have an assessment validation plan that identifies when assessment validation for each training product will be validated, what training products are being validated from your scope of registration, who will lead and assist in the assessment validation and how the outcomes of assessment validation will be used to improve the assessment.
You must have an assessment validation plan that complies with the 50% (3 years) – 100% (5 years) requirement.
Key point. The ASQA fact sheet (click) says that: “If you are validating a qualification, at least two units of competency should be sampled when validating a qualification.” ASQA has also provided our clients advice that if the RTO has no delivery in a qualification it has on its scope of registration, then the RTO is unable to undertake the assessment validation and ASQA would not expect assessment validation to have occurred under these circumstances.
You have conducted assessment validation in accordance with your documented plan and can demonstrate how the outcomes of assessment validation have been acted on to improve assessment.
You have only utilised persons to lead assessment validation that our competent in training and assessment and competent in the unit of competency being validated and who were not directly involved in the particular instance of assessment being validated. It should be noted that evidence of these person’s competency should be consistent with that expected of trainers and assessors.
Evidence to prepare:
A plan for assessment validation to ensure that each training product is validated at least once every five years, with at least 50% of products validated within the first three years of each five-year cycle.
Note. This requirement came into effect on first of April 2015. This means that at least 50% of the training products that are on the RTO’s scope of registration must be validated no later than the 1st April 2018 and the remaining items on the RTO’s scope must be validated no later than the 1st April 2020. Get on with it!
Evidence of the assessment validation procedure and the model of assessment validation used by the organisation.
Evidence of completed assessment validation that shows the process being applied, the statistically valid sample selected for the validation activity and the outcomes that were identified and how these are acted on.
Evidence of competency and currency of those persons who are leading assessment validation who are not directly involved in the particular instance of delivery and assessment of the training product being validated, and who has:
- vocational competencies and currency
- current knowledge and skills in vocational teaching and learning
- current competency in training and assessment
You should prepare for these types of questions:
Can you talk me through your assessment validation process? Do you have a policy or procedure?
Do you have an assessment validation plan? How have you determined that you will achieve validation of 50% of your scope of registration within the first three years?
How did you select units of competency for each qualification? Did you apply a risk assessment model to the selection of these units?
Can I see the record of assessment validation that is indicated on the plan as having been completed on this date?
Can we trace these outcomes through to your continuous improvement register or see how these improvements were actually made in the assessments?
Do you have a record of the learner sample you used to undertake this assessment validation?
Can I see the qualifications of this person who is nominated to lead the assessment validation in the validation plan?
Was this person involved in the conduct of this assessment with this cohort of learners? Can we access other learner records from this cohort?
Published by: Joe Newbery, released 2nd May 2017
© Newbery Consulting 2017
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 1.8
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 1.8
What the clause requires:
1.8 The RTO implements an assessment system that ensures that assessment (including recognition of prior learning): a) complies with the assessment requirements of the relevant training package or VET accredited course; and b) is conducted in accordance with the Principles of Assessment and the Rules of Evidence.
What is this clause about:
This clause is simply about assessment! 🙂 Of course it’s not simple at all. It involves interpreting the training package requirements through unpacking the units of competency and designing assessment resources that support the principles of assessment, the rules of evidence and the training package requirements. It’s about having good assessment resources in support of every unit of competency you deliver. It is also about having good assessment instructions for the candidate and for the assessor and suitable documents to record assessment evidence. The assessment tasks must align to the units of competency and the evidence you retain must justify the assessment decision and comply with the ASQA retention requirements for completed learner assessment items Click Here. If none of this makes sense to you then seek help immediately. 🙂 Ok, sorry, a bit of tongue-in-cheek there. Seriously though, this is a complex clause and is where the vast majority of RTO’s are found non-compliant. Assessment is one of the most subjective areas within the standards. Every auditor has their own preferences and will interpret the same requirement in the unit of competency differently. To overcome this subjectivity, you need to invest in the development of the best assessment tools you can afford and then have these reviewed by as many people as possible who know what they’re looking for. There are a couple of do nots to follow when preparing for assessment:
- Do not simply buy commercial assessment resources and make a false assumption that these are compliant because the organisation supplying them says that they are. There are some good commercial suppliers of assessment resources (including us), but the vast majority are seriously crapola (link). Always ask for a sample and review the sample to identify how much actual assessment design has gone into the activities. Most of these materials are simply the units of competency unpacked into observation tools and have converted the performance evidence statement into assessment instructions. Seriously hopeless. Buyer beware!
- Do not assume that the assessment materials that your friend or another RTO says have “passed” audit will be compliant at your audit. The reality is that an audit only looks at a sample and not the entire RTO’s scope is sampled. As outlined above, the audit of assessment is notoriously subjective. Some auditors gloss over the audit of assessment because they don’t really understand assessment requirements (is true). Other auditors understand assessment thoroughly and apply a high attention to detail to your assessment and its alignment to the unit of competency. I have seen assessments (same unit, same assessment resource) found compliant 30 out of 35 audits. What was unique about the 5 non-compliances? Answer: The auditor and their personal preferences and attention to detail.
- Do not interpret the unit of competency. Accept the unit as written in black-and-white and design your assessment to address every component of the unit of competency particularly the assessment requirements. If it says the candidate needs to be observed on 3 occasions, then do it 3 times. Don’t try and be tricky and get away with only collecting partial evidence. Collect exactly the evidence that the unit of competency specifies in the context of the tasks required.
Sorry to be a killjoy, but be aware that it is a civil offense to issue a vet qualification or unit of competency without undertaking adequate assessment (see National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011, Part 6, Division 1, Subdivision A, Section 103) Click – $21,600.00 fine! Assessment is a serious business. In some industries, the adequacy of the candidate’s assessment could impair their ability to perform workplace tasks and impact on their workplace safety. Get it right.
You must be able to demonstrate that:
- Your assessments meet the requirements of the training package, which means that if the unit of competency specified that the candidate must be observed five times performing a specific task then that is exactly what the assessment should include.
Key point.
- You have adequate assessment instructions that detail the requirements for the assessor and the candidate and support the fairness and flexibility of the assessment. We apply the following model to the development of assessment instructions:
- Who: Define who is being assessed and the role of any other persons that may be contributing to the assessment in a role-play.
- What: Specify the assessment task in terms of what the candidate must do exactly in order to demonstrate their competency. This will sometimes set limitations on the task.
- Where: Identify the assessment context in terms of the environment and the equipment required to conduct the assessment. This may also include information about the assessment scenario.
- When: Define the timeframe for the assessment activity
- Why: Specify the standard of performance for the assessment. This will relate to what is being assessed and will provide a guide to the assessor about specific requirements they need to look for.
- How: identify how the assessment will be conducted in terms of the sequence of activities from briefing the candidate through to collecting evidence and informing the candidate of the result. This should not repeat generic information that is contained elsewhere but may need to specify particular sequence or activities that are relevant to the assessment task. This should also specify any arrangements or mechanisms for reasonable adjustment.
- Your assessment task and the evidence being collected align perfectly with the tasks specified within the unit of competency and are informed by the desired workplace context to support the validity of the assessment. I have a favorite saying that I repeat frequently to clients in respect of validity:
“Collecting evidence of the candidate’s understanding of a task is not valid evidence of their ability to perform that task.”
- You are applying reliability in your assessment process which is supported by having model answers (benchmark responses) for written knowledge assessment, detailed observation criteria in support of observation tasks (benchmark behaviours) and developed examples in support of assessment projects and assignments (benchmark examples).
- You are collecting sufficient evidence that confirms the consistency of the candidate’s performance and their ability to perform all tasks specified within the unit of competency.
- You are applying arrangements to ensure that the evidence being collected is authentic and is the work of the candidate. These might include simple measures such as obtaining a declaration of authenticity from the candidate when they submit a response to an assessment task.
- You are only confirming a candidate’s competency based on current evidence particularly when RPL assessment processes are being applied. Mechanisms to confirm the candidate’s current skills and knowledge might include verbal interview or knowledge assessment combined with observation assessment.
Evidence to prepare:
For each unit or cluster of units, all assessment materials. These might include:
- Access to all learner records where actual learner assessment items and assessment records are retained. Again, note the ASQA General Direction—Retention requirements for completed learner assessment items Click Here
- Assessment coversheet to record the results of the assessment. This document should bring together all of the evidence gathered in relation to the assessment of the unit.
- Assessment instructions for the Assessor, Candidate and Supervisor if applicable. These should be detailed and describe the specific assessment tasks to be completed.
If the assessment requires the candidate to complete a document in a specific format, a document template must be provided to the candidate.
If assessment of knowledge is planned using written or verbal assessment, model answers for the assessment questions must be provided in order to ensure the reliability of the assessment.
Observation assessment tools for practical or product based assessment. These should be designed to include observation criteria that relate to the specific assessment task being assessed. Do not simply copy all the performance criteria. The auditor wants to see customised observation criteria that are observable and measurable.
Assessment mapping that shows how the assessment evidence being gathered relates to the unit of competence. This should display the mapping to elements, performance criteria, performance evidence and knowledge evidence requirements.
Assessment policy and procedure that defines how the organisation prepares and implements the assessment.
All RPL Assessment tools /resources for each training product on the scope of registration.
You should prepare for these types of questions:
Can I see the completed assessment records (Learner File) for the following learners please?
I am auditing the unit of competency XXXXXX, can you talk me through this assessment arrangement and identify how the evidence is being gathered and assessed?
How do you ensure the reliability of your assessment?
How did you determine the assessment tasks?
How do you ensure that the evidence being submitted is the candidate’s own work?
I am trying to understand how you observe these tasks being performed. How do you inform the candidate of the assessment activity?
Can you explain your approach to gathering third-party evidence? How do you verify the suitability of the third-party who is providing evidence? (ASQA Fact Sheet)
How do you prepare or support the supervisor to provide this evidence toward the assessment?
What resources and equipment do you use in support of this assessment?
For workplace assessment, how do you ensure that sufficient resources are available in the workplace to support the assessment.
How do you ensure that the assessment decisions between different assessors are reliable?
The unit of competency performance evidence statement requires the candidate to be observed performing this task five times over these range of situations, can you show me in this assessment evidence how this has been achieved?
The unit of competency knowledge evidence statement specified the requirement for knowledge of XXXXXXX, can you show me in the assessment evidence where this knowledge was assessed? Do you have a model answer that question?
The unit of competency assessment conditions statement specifies the requirement that the assessment must be undertaken in a real workplace with access to the following minimum equipment. How has this been achieved and verified?
All of these assessment materials have been commercially supplied to you. How have you customised them to align with your delivery model and target learner?
How are assessment results being reported and recorded?
What is your process for a candidate to be re-assessed or appeal an assessment decision?
How does the candidate receive feedback on their assessment result?
Can you explain your approach to assessment using recognition of prior learning? Do you have a separate RPL assessment tools for this unit or qualification? Can I see an example of RPL you have completed?
There is minimal or no observations or evidence being recorded by the assessor in this assessment record, I need to see valid evidence of the assessment as opposed to ticks on sheets of paper. Do you have any further evidence in support of this assessment? (ASQA General Direction)
Published by: Joe Newbery, released 2nd May 2017
© Newbery Consulting 2017
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 1.7
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 1.7
What the clause requires:
1.7 The RTO determines the support needs of individual learners and provides access to the educational and support services necessary for the individual learner to meet the requirements of the training product as specified in training packages or VET accredited courses.
What is this clause about:
This clause is about ensuring that every learner regardless of their individual situation has the opportunity to properly engage in learning and assessment that is aligned with their needs. It is about providing the learner support services in order to maximise the learner’s completion of the course. Good identification of the learner’s needs and alignment with relevant support services has a direct correlation to the RTO’s competency and qualification completion rates. This clause requires good arrangements to engage with learners during their enrolment pathway to determine their needs and it requires the RTO to have available support services to allocate according to the identified needs of the learner. It’s important to note that the RTO is not required to provide all possible support services. It is reasonable that a small RTO can provide basic language literacy and numeracy support, learning support services and be able to support the majority of learners who may have straight forward disabilities. Where specialist support services are outside of the RTO’s area of expertise then it is appropriate for the RTO to have referral arrangements for these specialist support services. It is also key to consider that “support needs” has a broad application under the standards. The glossary within the standards provides guidance as to the types of support services the RTO may provide. This is not simply relevant to language literacy and numeracy but applies to any individual need a learner may present with such as, disability, financial impairment, social exclusion, et cetera. It is useful when considering learner support needs to consider your learners and think outside the box in terms of what their requirements might be.
You must be able to demonstrate that:
You have very clearly defined arrangements to engage with learners during their enrolment pathway in order to determine their individual support needs.
You have established a broad offering of learner support services that align with the typical or planned learner support requirements.
You can provide examples of how you identified learner support needs and provided support services.
You can demonstrate how the learner is informed about the available support services and how to access these.
Evidence to prepare:
Enrollment policy and procedure which should identify how you engage with learners to determine their needs.
Information in the learner handbook (or equivalent) that informs the learner about the availability of support services and how to access these.
Enrollment application forms and associated documents which may include questions to gather information about the learner’s needs.
Enrollment interview record where you may engage with learner to clarify the needs.
Mechanisms to assess the learner’s language literacy and numeracy skill level benchmarked with the Australian Core Skills Framework.
Evidence of arrangements with local specialist support service providers such as specialist in language literacy and numeracy, counselling services or support services for those with cognitive impairment.
Examples of how support services have been provided to individual learners. In the lead up to an audit, you should canvass the staff in the office and your trainers and assessors who deal with learners at the coalface. These people will be able to recall instances of how learners have presented with needs and how these needs have been addressed. It is quite critical that you can provide tangible examples of how needs were determined and supported. Documentary evidence is king! This might be enrolment records, LLN assessments, correspondence via email with service providers, meeting minutes, et cetera.
You should prepare for these types of questions:
Can you talk me through your process for enrolling learners?
How do you identify a learner’s support needs during the enrollment process?
How do you inform learners about the available support services and have access these?
What do you define as a learner support need?
What arrangements do you have in place to support learners?
Can you identify an example of providing support services to assist them in their course?
Can you talk me through your arrangements to assess learner LLN ability?
Have you benchmarked your LLN assessment arrangements with the Australian Core Skills Framework?
Published by: Joe Newbery, released 2nd May 2017
© Newbery Consulting
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 1.5/1.6
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 1.5/1.6
What the clause requires:
1.5 The RTO’s training and assessment practices are relevant to the needs of industry and informed by industry engagement.
1.6 The RTO implements a range of strategies for industry engagement and systematically uses the outcome of that industry engagement to ensure the industry relevance of:
a) its training and assessment strategies, practices and resources; and
b) the current industry skills of its trainers and assessors.
What is this clause about:
These clauses are about ensuring that the training and assessment services the RTO delivers is relevant to the needs of employers. At the end of the day we deliver skills and knowledge to people so that they can go and perform work. That work is performed for employers who have requirements in each of their workplaces and want employees who have the skills and knowledge to work effectively in their business. So, to achieve this, the RTO needs to get out and talk to employers and establish what employers need so that this can be integrated into the training and assessment services the RTO delivers. This clause goes to the core of what we do in the VET sector and it also makes good business development sense.
You must be able to demonstrate that:
The selection of units of competency was informed by advice provided by industry
The mode of delivery and the structure of learning activities is consistent with what industry needs
The assessment tasks used within the course are consistent with the way that the relevant tasks are performed in the workplace (principle of assessment – validity)
Nominated trainers and assessors current skills and knowledge is consistent with current industry requirements such as codes of practice, work procedures, equipment usage and operating requirements, et cetera
You have hard or electronic documentary evidence to demonstrate all of the above. Your verbal assertion that you engage with industry will not be sufficient
You apply a range of strategies to engage with industry and have a systematic process to act on the outcomes from industry engagement
Evidence to prepare:
Evidence of the strategies the RTO applies to engage with industry. This may be in the form of the policy or other strategy document that details the methods the organisation applies to engage with industry to ensure that its training and assessment is relevant to industry requirements. The standards themselves have a nice list in the glossary of what constitutes industry engagement Click Here.
Evidence of industry engagement that has informed the following outcomes:
- the selection of units of competency;
- the allocation of learning methods and assessment tasks;
- the incorporation of selected equipment and resources in training; and
- the maintenance of current knowledge and skills of training staff.
It is valuable during a regulatory audit if you have hard evidence of the persons you have engage with in industry and can identify specific outcomes relating to these meetings. The evidence should substantiate how the outcomes above were informed.
It is nice to have this all organised in a register but any documentary evidence is acceptable such as emails, meeting minutes, interview records, site visit records, post activity reports, industry participation in validation activities, service proposals.
Don’t forget the corresponding documents in your training and assessment materials and strategies. If you identified in a meeting with industry representative that a particular unit of competency needed to be included as an elective, then the relevant evidence to demonstrate how this need was adopted will be within the training and assessment strategy and the relevant learning and assessment resources for that unit.
You should prepare for these types of questions:
Can you talk me through what strategies you apply to engage with industry?
Who do you identify as industry (ideally “industry” is the likely employer of your learners)?
Do you have a program or schedule of activities that guides your industry engagement?
Can you provide any examples or evidence of how you have engaged with industry and the outcomes it resulted in?
So, happy with what you have explained but do you have any documentary evidence or other information that supports this?
I you able to show how the engagement you have been undertaking with industry has informed the development of your trainer and assessor industry currency?
Have you identified any specific equipment or resource improvements through your industry engagement?
Published by: Joe Newbery, released 2nd May 2017
© Newbery Consulting
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 1.4
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 1.4
What the clause requires:
1.4 The RTO meets all requirements specified in the relevant training package or VET accredited course.
What is this clause about:
This clause essentially requires that the training and assessment strategies and practices applied by the RTO meet the requirements of each training product sampled in the audit. It is a direct overlap with the requirements specified within clauses 1.1, 1.3 and 1.8. It requires that the training and assessment being delivered meets the requirements of the training package which of course includes the training products (i.e. Qualifications, Skill Sets and Units of Competency). Although this clause is generally always in the audit scope, it is not particularly audited separately and is informed by the compliance of outcomes after the auditor has completed their audit of clauses 1.1, 1.3 and 1.8.
You must be able to demonstrate that:
Your arrangements for the delivery of training and assessment which meets training package requirements.
Note. This clause is what is commonly referred to as a default standard. So, if any of clauses 1.1, 1.3 or 1.8 for example are non-compliant then this clause is also non-compliant. It is actually rare for the auditor to audit this clause specifically. They tend to audit most of standard 1 which then informs the compliance outcome of this clause. We identify the following things that are typically considered to be “training package requirements”:
- qualification packaging rules
- qualification entry requirements
- unit of competency prerequisite requirements
- specified licensing / regulatory requirements
- assessment requirements (ref clause 1.8)
- correct codes and titles
- consistent with scope of registration
Evidence to prepare:
Refer to clause 1.1, 1.3 and 1.8
You should prepare for these types of questions:
Refer to clauses 1.1, 1.3 and 1.8 for questions in support of this clause.
Published by: Joe Newbery, released 2nd May 2017
© Newbery Consulting
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 1.3
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 1.3
What the clause requires:
1.3 The RTO has, for all of its scope of registration, and consistent with its training and assessment strategies, sufficient:
a) trainers and assessors to deliver the training and assessment;
b) educational and support services to meet the needs of the learner cohort/s undertaking the training and assessment;
c) learning resources to enable learners to meet the requirements for each unit of competency, and which are accessible to the learner regardless of location or mode of delivery; and
d) facilities, whether physical or virtual, and equipment to accommodate and support the number of learners undertaking the training and assessment.
What is this clause about:
It is primarily about making sure that the RTO has sufficient facilities, resources, people and services to support the delivery of training and assessment consistent with its scope of registration. This obviously will vary based on the RTO’s scope of registration, geographic area of delivery and delivery modes. The focus in this clause is particularly on the availability of learning resources and equipment/facilities that complement the training product being delivered. We find that auditors do not particularly focus on 1.3a (trainers) and 1.3b (support services) when auditing this clause as these items are also covered in other specific clauses that deal with these things in much more specific detail. That is not to say that these things can be ignored completely in this clause. The auditor is entitled to take into consideration if the RTO has a sufficient number of trainers and assessors for the planned number of learners. This equally applies to support services. As there is no specified benchmarks for these things (i.e. mandatory learner/trainer ratios), they are quite subjective.
You must be able to demonstrate that:
You have enough qualified trainers and assessors to support the number of learners you are delivering to (links with 1.13 to 1.16)
You have appropriate access and provision to education support services for the planned number of learners (links with 1.7)
You have the learning resources such as learner guides, textbooks, session plans, presentation tools, et cetera for each training product on your scope of registration
You have the equipment and facilities required for your mode of delivery and according to the requirements of each unit of competency being delivered
Evidence to prepare:
All learning materials for all items on the scope of registration. This may include text, workbooks or reference material, session plans, training aids, handouts, electronic presentations, etc. the learning resources must complement the specified knowledge and tasks identified in each unit of competency. For some auditors this is the go to place to sample the knowledge against the learning content.
All equipment used in the delivery of training for all items on the scope of registration.
Training facilities such as classrooms, computer labs, outdoor practical areas, etc
Staff matrix identifying trainers and assessors nominated for each training product on the scope of registration
Equipment inventories or evidence of arrangements to support the management of equipment and resources.
Evidence to demonstrate how equipment and resources required in the learner’s workplace are validated as available. May be some type of Workplace Equipment and Resources Checklist.
Lease agreements for facilities if leased. Keep in mind ASQA’s health and safety requirements for educational premises Click Here
Evidence of local government approval to operate a training business at your designated training sites.
MOU or letter of confirmation from facility owners where these facilities are not leased and being accessed on a casual basis.
Completed facility checklist to confirm that you have inspected the facilities and confirm their suitability for the training being delivered.
Service agreements (or licence) with associated service providers that may provide services in support of the RTO operations, such as equipment hire, commercial learning resources, et cetera
All assessment materials for all items on the scope of registration. Please refer to clause 1.8
You should prepare for these types of questions:
Can we take a tour of your training facilities?
I would like to see all of the learning materials for the following unit of competence. Do you have any guide that shows how the knowledge requirement within the units is addressed?
Do you have associated support materials that enable the implementation of the training strategy? I am specifically interested in seeing session plans, training aids, handouts, electronic presentations, etc.
I am auditing the unit of competency CHCECE005 – Provide care for babies and toddlers, and just looking at the required knowledge in the unit, can you show me within your learning material where you address the required knowledge of “guidelines for infection control” (As an example)?
Can you show me the equipment that is available to support the delivery of training for this unit of competence? For instance, this unit relates to observing the candidate conducting food preparation, do you have appropriate space, facilities and equipment for the candidate to be assessed undertaking food preparation and applying food hygiene practices? (As an example).
How do you ensure that specific equipment required to support workplace training is available? Do you have a process to validate this or negotiate this with the employer?
Can you show me a copy of the lease for the training facilities you have nominated at these delivery locations? Alternatively, do you have an MOU or a formal / written confirmation that these venues can be leased as you need them?
Do you have local government approval to operate a training business at your designated training sites? Can you show me this please?
Published by: Joe Newbery, released 2nd May 2017
© Newbery Consulting
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 1.2
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 1.2
What the clause requires:
1.2 For the purposes of Clause 1.1, the RTO determines the amount of training they provide to each learner with regard to:
a) the existing skills, knowledge and the experience of the learner;
b) the mode of delivery; and
c) where a full qualification is not being delivered, the number of units and/or modules being delivered as a proportion of the full qualification.
What is this clause about:
This clause works in conjunction with clause 1.1. If you take the clause as read it specifically says that the RTO must determine the amount of training they provide to “each learner”. We interpret this to mean that you must engage with the learner to understand their individual pre-existing knowledge and skills, existing competency and taking into consideration the mode of delivery. These things have the effect of reducing the amount of training that the individual needs and will therefore influence the training and assessment strategy that applies to their individual situation. We think of this as an individual learning pathway. It is also valid to apply the same concepts to an entire cohort if it is applicable. An example of this may include a cohort of learners who have completed a lower level qualification where some units of competency would achieve a direct credit transfer into the higher qualification. These learners may also be existing workers and potentially have some pre-existing knowledge and skills on their entry into the program. In this scenario, it is appropriate to take into consideration a reduced amount of training for the cohort in developing the course program.
You must be able to demonstrate that:
You engage with each learner to determine if they have pre-existing knowledge and skills which may reduce the volume of learning
You can apply different modes of delivery according to each learner’s needs that may influence the amount of training required
You engage with each learner to determine their eligibility to reduce their duration of training through recognition of prior learning or credit transfer
Evidence to prepare:
Evidence of the arrangements to engage with each learner during their enrolment to determine their existing skills and knowledge and opportunities for credit transfer and RPL.
Evidence of how the amount of training has been adjusted based on the understanding of learner cohort or individual learners pre-existing knowledge, skills and existing competency.
RPL arrangements that justify how an individual learners prior learning is assessed.
Credit transfer arrangements that justify how an individual learner’s current competency is verified
Enrolment arrangements that detail the process for the learner’s enrolment and demonstrates how they are engaged during this process
Enrolment interview or pre-training review records if applicable
Learner records of learners who have benefited from an adjusted individual learning pathway that has reduced their overall volume of learning. This will typically be evident in learners who received RPL or credit transfer.
Evidence of training needs analysis of a cohort that may have determined their pre-existing knowledge and skills and existing competency.
You should prepare for these types of questions:
How do you engage with each learner to determine the amount of training they need?
Can you provide examples of how you have adjusted the training program for an individual learner based on their individual entry level into the qualification?
How do you customise the training and assessment strategy or training plan based on the individual learner’s requirements?
You have allocated a considerable saving training time based on the learner’s pre-existing knowledge and skills. How did you determine this? Do you verify this entry level during the learner’s enrolment?
You have identified a saving of the training duration based on the mode of delivery. What was your rationale for determining this?
Published by: Joe Newbery, released 2nd May 2017
© Newbery Consulting 2017
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 1.1
Newbery’s Audit Guide – Clause 1.1
What the clause requires:
1.1 The RTO’s training and assessment strategies and practices, including the amount of training they provide, are consistent with the requirements of training packages and VET accredited courses and enable each learner to meet the requirements for each unit of competency or module in which they are enrolled.
What is this clause about:
You need to have a training and assessment strategy document that reflects how you deliver your training and assessment to your target cohort of learners. You might have different target cohorts such as enterprise clients and fee-for-service public courses. This would mean that the strategy you use to meet the needs of these different groups would vary and reflect the different approach in the delivery such as unit selection, mode of delivery, resourcing and duration.
A little (or a lot!) on Volume of Learning
There is a primary focus in the audit on determining if the course is of an acceptable training duration consistent with the AQF volume of learning (click). Where does volume of learning come from and what is its purpose? Clearly it comes from the AQF. It has been there in the AQF long before the current 2015 standards. It only came to prominence when it was used in these standards to place some requirement around the course duration. This was not a specified requirement in previous RTO standards. Some might say it was implied. I can tell you one thing, this was a source of auditor subjectivity, so bringing it into the current standards has at least put some clarity and objectivity around it (sort of).
The volume of learning is a dimension of the qualification’s complexity. It is a guide to the notional duration of the qualification assuming that there are no factors that might otherwise reduce this duration. I personally support its introduction. I can see it is having a positive effect on the quality and structure of courses being delivered. I see RTOs now giving better consideration to the learning structure because, simply, they have to. Just to avoid the insertion of another link, I have summarised the allocated volume of learning below for our VET qualifications:
- Cert I – 600 – 1200 hours
- Cert II – 600 – 1200 hours
- Cert III – 1200 – 2400 hours
- Cert IV – 600 – 2400 hours
- Diploma – 1200 – 2400 hours
- Adv Diploma – 1800 – 2400 hours
- Grad Cert – 600 – 1200 hours
- Grad Dip – 1200 – 2400 hours
Why is there a volume of learning range?
Why do we say that a certificate III has a range of 1200 – 2400 hours? I find this is one of the most confused aspects of the volume of learning and there is no written guidance about this that I am aware of. The range is due to the different number of units of competency required in each qualification. For example, a Certificate III in Business requires 12 units, a Certificate III in Early Childhood requires 18 units, a Certificate III in Light Vehicle Mechanical Tech requires 36 units. So, same AQF level but vastly different expectation in respect to the volume of knowledge and skills required to be delivered. This is the reason for the range. It is not valid to say that the minimum volume of learning for all Cert III qualifications (as an example) is 1200 hours. It is not. As the number or units increase, so should your guideline for the target volume of learning. As an example, the target volume of learning for a Cert III with 18 units might be about 1500 hours, not 1200 hours which is more reflective of a volume for a Cert III with 10-12 units. This is a key factor to consider before anything else in establishing a qualifications target volume of learning.
There are push and pull factors to consider.
When you consider the volume of learning, you need to approach it from both directions in terms of the factors that push it up and the factors which pull it down. I find that when I am doing an audit, the RTO will only state a total hours for the course. But what are those hours made up of? The hours are primarily comprised of the push factors which are the modes of learner engagement. These are things like classroom delivery and self-paced learning.
A very useful reference to understand what volume of learning consists of is ASQA’s Users’ guide to the Standards for VET Accredited Courses 2017 (click). I know it is about accredited courses, but have a read. I have been developing accredited courses for over a decade and defining the volume of learning has been front and center to that process for most of that time. This guide separates the consideration of the delivery hours and modes of learner engagement into those which are supervised and non-supervised. This is useful, as it prompts you to sub-categorise the modes of learner engagement into those which are supervised and non-supervised. The following descriptions of these have been adapted from the aforementioned guide:
- Supervised hours represent the supervised structured learning and assessment activity required to sufficiently address the content of each unit. Supervised hours are assigned to learning and assessment activities that are delivered via face-to-face or monitored online and/or structured distance education.
- Unsupervised hours represent activities that contribute to achieving the course outcomes that are not supervised by an RTO trainer or assessor. These may include activities such as non- supervised work experience, field placement, private study and/or assignment work.
So, instead of simply describing the volume as a single number of hours, I encourage clients to describe the modes of learner engagement (push factors) using these categories, such as the following example:
Supervised hours
- Classroom Training = 182 hours based on 7 hours per fortnight over 26 fortnights
- Practical Skills Training = 70 hours based on 7 hours per month over 10 months
- Assessment in the workplace = 104 hours based on 4 hours per fortnight over 26 fortnightly visits
Non-supervised hours
- Self-paced study = 324 hours based on 6 hours per week over 54 weeks of study
- Work placement = 220 hours based on 6 hours per week over 54 weeks and less the 104 hours to conduct assessment in the workplace.
- Assessment Preparation = 216 hours based on 4 hours per week over 54 weeks
The total volume of learning for this course is therefore 1116 hours delivered over 54 weeks.
This example is actually a real course (Cert III – 18 units) that we have designed and which has successfully been through about 35 initial registration and addition to scope audits. I’m certainly not claiming is as perfect and we will continue to evolve it, but it is a solid model for describing your volume of learning on the push side of the equation. You may be thinking; hang on, didn’t we say that a Cert III with 18 units should have a volume of about 1500 hours? Keep that thought in mind.
Ok, what about those pull factors?
Cause 1.2 identifies three things that serve to reduce the duration of training. This clause focuses on “each learner” but these factors are equally applicable at a cohort level that you may be designing a course for. ASQA do canvas this in their guide but it dances around the point and I don’t see RTOs using this effectively to their advantage.
The three things that reduce the training duration are:
- The existing skills, knowledge and the experience of the learner. So, lets say you have a target learner that are an existing worker or perhaps they have all completed a lower related qualification that had shared knowledge and skills with the qualification being developed? This means that it is likely these cohorts of learners have some existing skills and knowledge which should reduce the amount of learning required. This should reduce the expected volume of learning.
- The mode of delivery. This refers to the mode or combination of modes used to deliver the intended training. It can also refer to the design structure of the course such as unit-by-unit, unit clustering or holistic delivery. If you deliver a course using multi modes such as part-time classroom combined with online learning and work placement as an example, then of-course this delivery model is highly efficient. There learner has greater access to learning where they benefit from both trainer facilitation and their own directed and self-directed study. It is reasonable to claim a reduced course duration based on this rationale. Equally, if you are using unit clustering in your course design (the grouping together of units for learning and assessment), this avoids the overlap of having to teach and assess the same thing on multiple occasions. This is highly efficient and should lead to significant reductions in the training duration.
- The reduction in the number of units required to be delivered. This factor is very straight forward, if you can issue units through credit transfer or recognition of prior learning before the “training” commences, then this reduces the number of units needing to be delivered. As was explained earlier, the lower number of units, the lesser the expected volume of learning.
So, these are the factors that pull the required volume of learning down. The tricky part of considering the pull factors is establishing how much time to claim and how to explain this in the strategy. ASQA refer to this explanation as your rationale for the volume of learning. The following statement comes from the ASQA Factsheet – Amount of Training:
If your RTO is considering that its training and assessment strategy should specify a shorter timeframe than that defined in the AQF volume of learning, you will need to be able to identify and explain why there is a variation. Your training and assessment strategy may include a rationale explaining how, based on the previous skills and knowledge and needs of learners, a specific learner cohort.
In regards to our example above (Cert III with 18 units), the course was clustered with 18 units reduced to 7 clusters. This has a profound effect on reducing the required volume. I would estimate that the 1500 hours would be conservatively reduced to 1200 hours. We included a long rationale statement of which the following small section addressed the time saving through clustering:
It should be noted that some time efficiency in the delivery has been achieved through the mode of delivery using a clustered unit delivery model. This resulted in 18 units of competency being delivered in 7 unit clusters. In accordance with Clause 1.2 of the RTO Standards, this mode of delivery has led to a reduced course duration. The estimated 1500 hours of volume of learning is considered to be reduced to 1200 hours based on this mode of delivery. Clustering units of competency together according to their common work function, shared knowledge and skills means that these items can be trained and assessed more efficiently without unnecessary repetition.
In conclusion:
- Be sure to identify the target volume of learning based on how many units you have in your qualification.
- Be sure the clearly outline the delivery hours and modes of learner engagement (push factors) into their supervised and non-supervised components.
- Be sure to utilise the full kit bag of pull factors which you can validly point to as reducing the expected volume of learning.
- Be sure to provide sufficient detail in your TAS that explains the rationale for your expected duration and any time savings.
Just on a quick closing point on volume of learning. In our experience, we have not experienced (generally) auditors being dogmatic with the volume of learning. I can point to many examples of courses we have presented (through the client) to ASQA where the volume of learning was significantly below what was required with little justification in regards to valid rationale. There were good reasons for this in all cases, primarily related to catering for the target learner. The common thing in all of these courses was the detailed course structure and the RTO being able to demonstrate that all of the required knowledge and skills had been covered with sufficient time allocated to skill development. This is an overriding factor. If your volume is not stupid low and your learning and assessment is compliant with sufficient time allocated for skill development, then you should be OK. At least, that is our experience. 🙂
You must be able to demonstrate that:
Your strategy is targeting a specific learner cohort and is tailored for their needs.
Your selection of units of competency complies with the training package rules.
You can identify the specific learning and assessment activities align to each unit of competency or cluster and show how these are sequenced and structured in the course program.
Your strategy complies with mandatory entry requirements, prerequisites and licensing requirements applicable to the training product being delivered.
You are delivering the training product in an acceptable duration that is consistent with the AQF volume of learning.
Your strategy is consistent with the way your training is being delivered and advertised.
Evidence to prepare:
Training and Assessment Strategy (current) for each item on the scope of registration. This must identify:
- the target learner or cohort
- the mode of delivery
- entry requirements
- licensing or regulatory requirements
- language literacy and numeracy requirements
- the units of competency
- the planned duration and allocation of supervised and non-supervised time (detailed)
- rationale for the amount of training
- work placement arrangements if applicable
- the learning delivery methods and activities
- the assessment methods and tasks
- the resources and equipment requirements
- plan for evaluation and continuous improvement
A supporting training program or training schedule document (very important) that details the actual program of delivery including the planned learning and assessment activities and how these are sequenced and structured into the course.
A detailed resource guide that identifies the physical and non-physical resources required to deliver the course. This should not be broad statements and is recommended to be quite detailed list of equipment and other resources needed for the delivery.
A staff matrix document or equivalent (not compulsory but recommended) that identifies the nominated trainers and assessors used in the delivery of the course. This document should provide a summary of their qualifications, industry experience and recent professional development.
Evidence of industry engagement that informed the course development (not compulsory but recommended). This should identify the industry representatives that were engaged with, the details of the meeting and the outcomes relevant to the course development.
You should prepare for these types of questions:
Can you talk me through the way this course is delivered?
Who is the target learner for this course and how has the course been adjusted to their needs? Do they have any pre-existing knowledge and skills?
What was the basis for your selection of elective units?
What are the pre-requisite or entry requirements for this course and how have you catered for them in the enrolment process?
Can you explain the design structure for the course and what was the reason for adopting this structure (i.e. unit by unit, clustered, holistic)?
What is the duration of the course and how have you determined that this is sufficient time to achieve all the specific requirements of each unit of competence?
The planned duration does not appear to be consistent with the recommended volume of learning. What is the rationale for the planned duration?
You have quite a large amount of time allocated to ‘self-paced learning’. Do you have developed self-paced learning activities that learners complete during this time?
How will training sessions be delivered in this course? Can you talk me through the training delivery strategy?
How will assessment be conducted in the course? Can you talk me through how assessment methods will be applied and show any examples of these in the program?
Can you talk me through how the work placement is organised? I am particularly interested in how you will ensure that the work placement site is suitable and if the required resources are available. How will the learner be orientated and supervised?
Published by: Joe Newbery, released 2nd May 2017
© Newbery Consulting 2017
VET News – 15 March 2017
|
Need a good news story?
Once upon a time there was a man named Brian. Brian is a mild mannered man who wanted to deliver industry training to the next generation. You see, Brian really believes that if you give a person skills and knowledge to perform a job, this is the best gift of all. But, Brian was finding that the regulatory requirements were making it very difficult to concentrate on the actual training he wanted to deliver. He is constantly buried in paperwork and compliance. Something needed to change!! Watch the video to see how this story ends. 🙂
Newbery Webinars
Newbery Consulting is please to offer our pre-recorded webinars on compliance and training and assessment best practice. These webinar sessions allow you to access professional development aimed at those who manage compliance in their RTO and for trainers and assessors. Participants will receive a certificate of achievement following the session which will assist in meeting their professional development compliance obligations. Once you have registered, you will receive an email that provides you a link to register for the webinar and what follows, is pure PD bliss! Check out the next scheduled session.
Designing your own RTO system?
For over a decade now, Newbery Consulting has been developing and improving our RTO System for the benefit of clients. Comprised of policies and procedures, forms and tools and RTO Data, our system is perfect for those starting an RTO or renewing an RTO operation. These products are exposed to regulatory audits about 2-3 times a week. This means that, if there is feedback available, we get it and this is used to constantly improve these products. Designed to comply with the Standards for Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) 2015. Check it out today and get started with RTO System.
VET News – 31 January 2017
|
VET News – 31st January 2017
Hello and welcome to VET News
Just a reminder, that we are entering the reporting season. Over the next five months the following reports are due in accordance with the Standards for Registered Training Organisations:
Total VET activity reporting, Due no later than 28 Feb, Click Here for more information
Annual CEO Declaration on Compliance, Due no later than 31 Mar, Click Here for more information
Quality indicator reporting, Due no later than 30 Jun, Click Here for more information
Ok, I have some important news to share. My two big sisters that have been sharing my journey in Newbery Consulting for many years are both leaving the business for other pursuits. It is a sad day for us, but at the same time we are all excited for both Cathy and Anne Maree. Cathy started with us in 2013 assisting me with responding to our many enquiries we receive each day. Cath then moved into a project coordination role assisting our clients moving through to their initial registration. As our Applications Manager, Cath has been instrumental in working with clients to prepare their application evidence. Cath has decided it is time to retire from the workforce and spend more time with family/friends and on the golf course! Anne Maree has been with us a little longer starting in 2009. Anne Maree has performed work for Newbery Consulting as a Training Developer, Compliance Consultant and Auditor (not to mention VET News Editor!). Anne Maree has decided to take on an education leadership role in the Middle East. That is the brain drain at work right there!
To both of my beautiful sisters, I want to thank you so much not only from me but on behalf of all the staff at Newbery Consulting for your tireless and valuable contribution to our business. I appreciate you putting up with me all of these years and for your sometimes-candid advice. You will both be missed dearly and we hope you enjoy the next stage of your journey in life.
Good Training
Joe Newbery
As always we invite new subscribers at: Subscribe to VET News
If you have some news, send it to us at news@newberyconsulting.com.au
|
|
|
VET News – 20 December 2016
|
Hello and welcome to VET News
Well 2016 is almost done and dusted. I think it’s fair to say that it has been a tough year for our sector. We look forward to 2017 with hope that the business environment will improve. I feel that the new year will be a year of innovation as RTOs attempt to find efficiencies in a tough environment.
Newbery Consulting is closing for two weeks over the period 24th Dec 2016 to 3rd Jan 2017. I would like to personally thank our hard working staff and contractors for their efforts in 2016. I would also like to thank you for your continued support. We receive so many nice emails from our readers of VET News. We are pleased that our newsletter has been useful to you.
I wish you all a very merry Christmas and happy New Year.
Joe Newbery
As always we invite new subscribers at: Subscribe to VET News
If you have some news, send it to us at news@newberyconsulting.com.au
|
|
|
TAE50211 – Diploma of Training Design and Development
[course code=”TAE50211″]
VET News – 30 November 2016
|
VET News – 30th November 2016
Hello and welcome to VET News
I hope you are all well. We are waiting to hear the outcomes this week of the Senate vote with respect of the VET Student Loan Bill. The proposed amendments to grant TAFE institutes a 12 month exemption has already been announced. I also understand that there is some fierce lobbying going on the obtain a 6 month delay for all providers to properly assess the likely impact on the sector. I hope this eventuates but it is already too late for many RTOs. The uncertainty has already led to many staff being laid off. We should all spare a thought for those who have lost their employment particularly this close to Christmas. We will send out a final VET News before we break for Christmas and provide an update then.
Just as a heads-up to all of our clients, we have changed our main office number. We had our reception service outsourced to a service provider who really was dropping the ball so have taken control of this in-house. The new number you can reach us on is (02) 8005 8029. The best we to contact us is always via email either to the staff directly or to enquiries@newberyconsulting.com.au for new or existing client enquiries. For our RTO Data users, the best way to get support is to email support@newberyconsulting.com.au.
Just a prelude to some exciting news I will announce next month, in 2017 we will be launching a webinar based professional development service. This will commence in January and will be scheduled to occur once per week. The sessions will have a duration of an hour and will be very affordably priced (cheap, some would say!). These will be advertised on the Newbery Consulting website were you can register to attend or purchase a subscription. All participants will receive a digital certificate to contribute to their PD evidence. The sessions will focus on all things training and assessment and the Standards for Registered Training Organisations. More to follow in December!
Good training,
Joe Newbery
As always we invite new subscribers at: Subscribe to VET News
If you have some news, send it to us at news@newberyconsulting.com.au
|
|
|
VET News – 28 October 2016
|
VET News – 28th October 2016
Hello and welcome to VET News
Well, I have been sounding the alarm bells on the VET Fee Help program since 2012. The government made some changes at the fringes in 2015 to clean this sector up. However, this month has brought down the hammer like a blunt instrument on the private providers operating in this sector. I won’t repeat here the information you can read in the news below. I think many of the reforms in the VET Student Loans scheme are appropriate. One reform that hasn’t received much publicity is restriction applied to third party delivery of training. This will only be allowed in circumstances where the third party is also an approved VET Student Loan provider. That will have an immediate effect of consolidating this portion of the sector down to the actual organisations which are approved under the scheme and not the hybrid network of partners. The Government will also have greater powers to take disciplinary action against training providers who breach requirements of the program and its associated guidelines. All these are good.
But the measure that I think will have the greatest positive effect is the requirement for current VET Fee Help Providers to reapply to become a VET Student Loan provider. Provisional approval will be provided for a period of six months if those providers meet key selection criteria which among other things include demonstrating appropriate student outcomes. The government have identified that this will include evaluating data on completion rates at the course and unit level, data on student outcomes and student satisfaction. So, if you are a provider that has been doing the right thing and applying robust student engagement during enrolment and providing meaningful support services to support your students to completion, you have absolutely nothing to worry about. My true hope is that the government are serious about this evaluation and we weed out all the current providers who are still in the system collecting fees from students and then doing little or nothing to deliver on their promised services.
I mentioned before that the government brought down the hammer. Well in regards to its qualification selection and allocation of payment cap it is simply a dumb blunt instrument. The allocation of funding to some courses particularly in the management and commerce category just is beyond belief. Let’s have a look at one example. The Diploma of Travel and Tourism Management SIT50116 has been allocated an amount of $5,000.00. It is a complex course to deliver requiring 23 units of competency. It is an important qualification for the continued growth and management of the tourism sector. It cannot be delivered in a quality way for that amount of money and still meet the Governments mandated volume of learning. The RTO will need to seek a substantial co-payment from the student which is unlikely to occur. Not counting public providers and enterprise RTO’s there are only 16 private providers in the country with this qualification on their scope. We have already had clients tell us that they will discontinue to offer that qualification (among many others). The government’s reform have absolutely punished good private providers and will see the delivery of these courses consolidate to the public providers. But, if you want to do a Diploma of Horse Breeding – Stud Management (22308VIC), it will cost you a VET Loan amount of a whopping $15,000.00. The only problem is that no RTO in the country has it on their scope! It makes no sense and needs to be reconsidered.
The reforms must yet be approved by the Senate. My hope is that some common sense is applied and there is some consideration for the many very good private providers that are out there supporting our communities. The reforms overall are good, but the tiered payment arrangements have not properly considered the cost of delivering quality vocational education and training or the effect it will have on good providers. The inequality it creates for those lower socio-economic sections of the community who rely on a vocational pathway into the workforce is patently wrong.
Good training,
Joe Newbery
As always we invite new subscribers at: Subscribe to VET News
If you have some news, send it to us at news@newberyconsulting.com.au
|
|
|
VET News – 21 September 2016
|
VET News – 21st September 2016
Hi there,
I hope this finds you well. Hello to all of our new subscribers! Fairly sure we had the largest growth in a single month over the Aug/Sep period, so very happy with that. We also attended the National VET Conference on the Gold Coast 14-16 Sep 2016. It was great! I was a little let down that none of our staff competed in this year’s “dance off competition”. We were a little hampered this year by pregnancy and shyness,,, but we will be back next year in Sydney and Newbery Consulting (not me:) will be out to win the title. 🙂
The conference was great fun and very valuable professionally. We collected information on some great new products that have been released in the last 12 months and will be recommending these to clients. I really enjoyed my presentations as well and valued the opportunity to contribute. Congratulations to the guys at Velg again on a great conference. Bring on Sydney 2017.
I hope you enjoy the news.
Good training,
Joe Newbery
As always we invite new subscribers at: Subscribe to VET News
If you have some news, send it to us at news@newberyconsulting.com.au
|
|
|
VET News – 26 August 2016
|
VET News – 26th August 2016
Hi there,
Thanks to everyone regarding the wonderful feedback on last month’s newsletter. It is amazing that almost five years ago we had this crazy idea to launch a free monthly newsletter. We wanted to cut through all of the information clutter out there and present a concise news report on the things we feel are worth focusing on in our wonderful VET sector. Our five year anniversary for VET News is in Nov 2016! I get emails every week from our subscribers thanking us for the work we do to publish VET News. We thank you for that feedback and will continue to support the sector in the future. I would like to personally thank my big sister Anne Maree who undertakes the research and prepares the news each month. The work Anne Maree does to review every item that comes in over the month, discard the noise and publish the important news items is huge. Thanks Anne Maree, you are a champion and a true professional!
So, with our five year anniversary approaching we are on a recruitment drive to spread the the love of VET News. We invite you to distribute VET News to your work colleagues and recommend they subscribe. We love new subscribers! The link to subscribe is below or click here.
For those going to the National VET Conference on the Gold Coast this year please come up and say hi. I am presenting a Master Class session on the 14th Sep relating to Assessment Design and then a session at the end of day one (15th Sep) relating to VET Regulation, trends, stories and lessons learned. Should be fun. I really enjoy the National Conference held by Velg each year. It is always presented very professionally. I particularly enjoy the trade area to see what is new and identify products that can be recommend to our clients. You can get a lot of research done in a short space of time. For our RTO Data users, Sarah and Bree will be also attending so be sure to come up and meet those lovely ladies. We look forward to seeing you there.
Good training,
Joe Newbery
As always we invite new subscribers at: Subscribe to VET News
If you have some news, send it to us at news@newberyconsulting.com.au
|
|
|
VET News – 28 July 2016
|
VET News – 28th July 2016
Hi there,
It is a packed VET News this month. If you have previously missed it, ASQA made an announcement this month about changes to the audit process. It is worth taking a look at that. It seems to be a step back from allowing for procedural fairness. The key change in my view is the option for the regulator to move straight to issuing “Notice of intent to impose administrative sanction” without first allowing the RTO to rectify a non-compliance. It does say that this action may be taken when highly concerning non-compliance are identified. It will be interesting to see how this new power is applied by the regulator. It certainly will require auditors to make accurate findings as the consequences for the RTO are significant. It will likely result in more RTOs taking their appeal to the AAT where they definitely will get procedural fairness.
Before I go, I want to do a big shout out to one of our fantastic clients the Australian Careers Business College (ACBC). Last week on Thursday I attended a great event to celebrate ACBC’s 20th Year Anniversary and to mark the official opening of their new campus in Liverpool NSW. The Minister for Regional Development, Skills, and for Small Business, the Hon. John Barilaro, MP attended and did the honours and gave a great speech. I just want to again congratulate Ann and Nick Elisha on a great achievement. Too often we dwell on the bad apples in our industry. These guys are the good apples. They run a wonderful RTO that produces outstanding results for their students. The staff and trainers at ACBC are passionate and committed to the quality of the training and assessment they provide. These guys really do set the bar for a private college in our industry and Newbery Consulting is very pleased to have shared their journey. Well done guys!
Good training,
Joe Newbery
As always we invite new subscribers at: Subscribe to VET News
If you have some news, send it to us at news@newberyconsulting.com.au
|
|
|
VET News – 22 June 2016
|
VET News – 22nd June 2016
Hi there,
Hope you are all well. Just thought I would share this gem with you all.
Back on the 3rd June I sought clarification form ASQA about what I assumed was a very simple question: Can a domestic provider who is not a registered CRICOS provider deliver unit only courses such as first aid, RSA or Construction Safety (White Card) to international students.
Now this happens all the time. International students can work under their visa conditions 40 hours per fortnight. If they secure work in say, a cafe that also serves beer and wine, they will need to hold a competency in RSA. Equally, if they require first aid to work for a specific employer, then they need the competency in first aid. There are many 100s of providers delivering these services and many would not even consider it an issue if the student is from overseas or not. They have a USI (which they can create on the USI portal with a Visa number) and they have a need to obtain a competency for work. Makes sense! Well according to ASQA unless the provider is an approved CRICOS provider to deliver that course at an approved location, then the provider is breaking the law and the maximum punishment is Imprisonment for 2 years!
I have published the response I received from ASQA on our site with some commentary Click Here. It has some interesting implications. Enjoy the news.
Good training,
Joe Newbery
If you have some news, send it to us at news@newberyconsulting.com.au
|
|
|
VET News – 18 May 2016
|
|
|
|
VET News – 15 April 2016
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Release of – TAE40116
Hi there,
On the 6th April 2016 the new TAE40116 Certificate IV in Training and Assessment (Click Here) was released. It is a very different qualification to its predecessor. It is not equivalent to begin with so that means that the 716 RTOs with TAE40110 on their scope will loose it in 12 months (see note below) and will need to apply to have the new qualification added to scope. ASQA has established the most rigorous requirements for an RTO to add a new qualification to scope that I have ever seen. You can check this out here (Click Here). So, it will be quite difficult and expensive to add this new qualification to scope which will serve to clean out the number of providers. There is already lots of discussion on Linked-in about this with many saying that they will not bother to add the new qualification to their scope. It will be interesting to look back in 12 months from now to see how many RTO’s have added it to scope. I think we could see the current 716 reduced to below 150.
The big differences is the return of the unit TAEASS502 Design and develop assessment tools as a core unit which I think is great. It was a huge mistake when this unit was removed and this will help to return one of the foundation skills we need in our sector. The unit TAELLN411 Address adult language, literacy and numeracy skills has also been included as a core unit which has been long expected. The qualification still only requires 10 units but now has 9 core and 1 elective as opposed to the previous 3 electives. The devil however is definitely in the detail. All of the units have now been re-published into the new format which means we have very specific performance and knowledge evidence requirements with specified frequency requirements. I always considered that the previous units were very clear anyway with specific requirements in the critical aspects, however they are now written even more clearly and impose some stronger requirements for the new units to be assessed. An interesting addition in the assessment conditions in most units is the requirement for the assessor to hold the TAE50116 Diploma of Vocational Education and Training or the TAE50111 Diploma of Vocational Education and Training or be able to demonstrate equivalence of competencies. This contradicts the Standards for Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) 2015 which from 1st Jan 2016 does not allow for demonstrated equivalent competence and only requires assessors to hold the competence at least to the level being assessed. Even from the 1st Jan 2017 in the standards it specifies the higher qualifications required to deliver TAE training products, but it also does not allow for equivalence and has a broader list of qualifications at Item 5 of Schedule 1 (Click Here). So, that is a bit strange. Why would they publish something in a new training product that directly contradicts a statutory requirement within a legislative instrument (the standards)?
But,, overall, I am not whinging. I am very happy with this new qualification. I think it is great that it is not equivalent as we need to clean out all of the RTOs that are currently delivering TAE40110 so poorly. It provides strengthened requirements to deliver and assess the people entering our sector as trainer/assessors and re-introduces assessment design as a core skill. Fantastic!!
Now, the big question that many will be asking is, Do I need to go and upgrade my TAE40110 to TAE40116 if I work as a trainer/assessor? In my view the answer is no, you do not. The standards say that an RTO’s training and assessment is delivered by persons who have the training and assessment qualifications specified in Item 1 or 2 of Schedule 1 which specifies the TAE40110 Certificate IV in Training and Assessment or its successor or a diploma or higher level qualification in adult education. So you do not need to upgrade to this qualification. You simply need to maintain your skills and knowledge in training and assessment.
Note. On 22 April 2016 (after this blog was originally posted) the Australian Industry and Skills Committee added TAE40116 to its list of qualifications with an extended transition period of 18 months.
Good training,
Published: 15th April 2016
Copyright © Newbery Consulting 2015. All rights reserved.
VET News – 9 March 2016
Hi there,
Welcome to our March VET News. A very interesting ASQA update this month with ASQA publicising its decision to cancel the registration of a number of RTOs following the investigation into some VET Fee Help providers. It will be interesting to watch if these RTOs challenge the regulators decision in the Federal Court and if they succeed in reversing the decision. The regulatory framework the ASQA operate under mean that it must comply with procedural fairness and its decisions are always subject to review. It was a bold and brave decision by the Commissioner to cancel these registrations. Time will tell if that decision is durable.
Enjoy the news and thanks to those who sent positive feedback on my “CEO Annual Declaration” article. It is good to give these things some perspective.
Good training,
If you have some news, send it to us at news@newberyconsulting.com.au
Compliance & Regulatory News
ASQA update
ASQA cancels registration of Cornerstone Investment Aust Pty Ltd
Cornerstone Investment Aust Pty Ltd (RTO 5500), trading as Australian Institute of Commerce and Language and EMPOWER INSTITUTE, was audited as part of ASQA’s review of 21 VET FEE-HELP providers. ASQA has made the decision to cancel the RTO’s registration with effect from 11 March 2016.
MEDIA RELEASE>
Information for Vocation Limited students
ASQA has published a fact sheet to assist students enrolled with the liquidated RTOs owned by Vocation Limited. The RTOs were:
- Training & Development Australia Pty Ltd (91246)
- Avana Learning Pty Ltd (90976)
- Learning Verve (21766)
- Real Corporate Partners Pty Ltd (91669)
ASQA training providers briefing sessions
ASQA will be hosting 28 briefing sessions for training providers around Australia from March through June 2016. The sessions will cover a range of topics including trends in compliance since the introduction of theStandards for Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) 2015 and other important subjects. READ MORE>>
….and due to strong demand, an additional live webcast provider briefing has been announced. READ MORE>>
ASQA course accreditation briefing sessions
In addition to the training provider briefings, ASQA will be hosting six sessions focused on providing owners and developers of VET accredited courses with the information and guidance needed to ensure their courses fully comply with the Standards for VET Accredited Courses 2012.
READ MORE>>
VET Reform
New Minister for Vocational Education and Skills
On 13 February 2016, the Prime Minister, the Hon Malcolm Turnbull, announced several changes to his Ministry. In relation to the Education and Training portfolio, Senator the Hon Scott Ryan, has been appointed as Minister for Vocational Education and Skills. Senator Ryan replaces the Hon Luke Hartsuyker MP.
READ MORE>>
SkillsIQ Limited – New Skills Service Organisation (SSO)
As reported last month, the Community Services & Health Industry Skills Council (CS&HISC) was defunded and ceased to trade on 31 December 2015. Its joint Expression of Interest with Service Skills Australia, however, to operate as a Skills Service Organisation (SSO) has been successful. The result is SkillsIQ Limited.
This is not a merger of these organisations, but a new not-for-profit company which will work to support training package development with a range of IRCs allocated by the AISC.
READ MORE>>
Councils and committees
Australian Industry and Skills Committee (AISC) meeting
The AISC held its sixth meeting on 18 February in Melbourne, the first meeting under the new arrangements for training product development that commenced on 1 January 2016. No communiqué is currently available for this meeting.
At the meeting the AISC endorsed the following eight training packages for implementation:
- SIT Tourism, Travel and Hospitality
- MSF Furnishing
- PSP Public Sector
- FWP Forest and Wood Products (R2)
- AV1 Aviation (R3)
- MAR Maritime (R4)
- TL1 Transport and Logistics (R2)
- MSL Laboratory Operations.
NCVER update
AVETMISS reporting reminder
The NCVER has issued a reminder to RTOs about meeting their VET data reporting obligations: the collection of total VET activity data is now underway and the deadline (29 February 2016) for reporting 2015 nationally accredited fee-for-service training activity is rapidly approaching.
If you haven’t already provided your AVETMISS data to either NCVER or your state training authority, now is the time to start validating and submitting your data.
AVETMISS SUPPORT>>
Events, Resourcing & Funding News
Australian apprenticeship update
Click on the links below to view the Training Package qualifications recently implemented in States and Territories.
UPDATE 3/02/2016>>
UPDATE 17/02/2016>>
UPDATE 02/03/2016>>
VET funding declines
In the Report on Government Services (RoGS) published by the Productivity Commission in January, recurrent funding for the VET sector by Commonwealth, state and territory governments totalled $5.2 billion in 2014, which was a 12 percent cut from 2013.
READ MORE>>
Five-Point plan for North Queensland
Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk announced the Queensland Government’s five-point plan to stimulate jobs in North Queensland. The expansion of retraining and skills initiatives, including Skilling Queenslanders for Work, forms part of the plan.
READ MORE>>
Webinar: Supporting students with disabilities
Register now for NCVER’s and ADCET’s webinar showcasing the findings from the recently released NCVER report Supporting tertiary students with disabilities: exploring the use of individualised and institution-level approaches in practice. The webinar, on Thursday 10 March from 1-2pm AEDT, will be presented by Dr Annie Venville and Professor Ellie Fossey.
REGISTRATION>>
Recent VET Publications
What the National Innovation and Science Agenda (NISA) Didn’t Say About Skills and Jobs
Craig Fowler
The recent launch of the National Innovation and Science Agenda (NISA) sets out four interrelated clusters of initiatives with a collective purpose to increase productivity, support high wage jobs and the next wave of economic prosperity. But, writes Dr Craig Fowler NCVER’s Managing Director, other initiatives essential to an effective national innovative system are largely overlooked.
OPINION PIECE>>
Building learner foundation skills is your responsibility
Allison Miller
All VET practitioners using units with foundation skills explicitly included in them need to assess their learners’ required foundation skills. This blog has useful tips and resource suggestions for doing this.
BLOG>>
Graduate programs for VET students: is there a need?
Bridget Wibrow & Laura Jackson
This ‘at a glance’ looks at whether graduate programs – a type of employment program targeted at recent graduates – are feasible for vocational education and training (VET) students. These programs are more common in higher education but could have the potential to improve the number of VET students employed in their intended occupation after training. However, to improve their uptake, the benefits of employing recent graduates need to be promoted to employers. It also touches on work-integrated learning to improve the work experience of VET students.
RESEARCH SUMMARY>>
Other News of Interest
New VET law in Queensland
In a media release on 25 February, QLD Minister for Training and Skills, the Hon Yvette D’Ath, welcomed the passage of the Further Education and Training (Training Ombudsman) and Another Act Amendment Bill 2015, saying it would support a robust quality VET system for students, apprentices, trainees and employers. The Act establishes an independent Training Ombudsman for the VET sector, to act as a watchdog.
READ MORE>>
Australia attracts international students
In a media release on 29 February, Senator the Hon Richard Colbeck, Minister for Tourism and International Education, noted that international education delivered almost $20 billion into the economy last year, confirming its importance to the economic and social future of Australia. Almost half a million international students from nearly two hundred countries studied in Australia in 2015, demonstrating Australia’s strong global-competitiveness in education.
READ MORE>>
Federal government asked to cancel student debts after college collapse
The federal government is being asked to cancel the VET FEE-HELP debts of thousands of students impacted by the collapse of Aspire College of Education and three related entities.
Victorian Minister for Training and Skills Steve Herbert said he will be writing to the federal minister asking that students have their loans cancelled and offering assistance from Victorian TAFEs to help place students into alternative courses.
READ MORE>>
Pam Christie joins ASQA
Pam Christie has joined ASQA as the agency’s acting Executive Director, Regulatory Operations. Ms Christie has held a number of senior government positions in the education and training sector over the past 20 years, including Managing Director of TAFE New South Wales and Deputy Director-General of the New South Wales Department of Education. In that time, she has led policy, regulatory and funding reforms across public, community and private training organisations.
In her role at ASQA, Ms Christie will assist Chief Commissioner Chris Robinson and Commissioner, Risk, Intelligence and Regulatory Support, Michael Lavarch, with a range of strategic and operational priorities and responsibilities while the Australian Government undertakes a recruitment process for the position of Commissioner, Regulatory Operations.
The news articles presented in this edition of VET News have been researched and prepared by Anne Maree Newbery.
Copyright © Newbery Consulting 2016, All rights reserved.
Our mailing address is:
enquiries@newberyconsulting.com.au
VET News – 1 February 2016
Hi there,
I have been getting many questions about the approaching requirement for RTO Chief Executive Officers to submit an annual declaration to the National Regulator about their compliance. So, I have put my thoughts down in a Blog to address these questions. You can access that on our website at the following page: http://newberyconsulting.com.au/ceo-annual-declaration. The declaration is due by the 31st Mar 2016 (see here) for the details on the ASQA website.
There are some other significant news in this edition. Of note is the announcement of the new Skills Service Organisations. Only five announced some who have a massive span of responsibility across many training packages. It will be interesting to look back in 2-3 years and see how this model goes. We have effectively tendered out the maintenance and development of training packages. I don’t know how the tender will work, but if those businesses get paid on the basis of the amendments they make to the training packages (which is a reasonable assumption) then we could be in for a very turbulent time in regards to responding to changes published on TGA. I sincerely hope that a KPI in the contract is to provide RTOs some stability in the training products being delivered. Watch this space.
Good training,
Joe Newbery
As always we invite new subscribers at: Subscribe to VET News
If you have some news, send it to us at news@newberyconsulting.com.au
Compliance & Regulatory News
ASQA update
Reminder—New Standards clauses came into effect on 1 January 2016. Additional clauses in the Standards for RTOs 2015 (the Standards) came into effect for all RTOs on 1 January 2016.
These clauses relate to the competency requirements for trainers and assessors and RTOs applying for—or delivering qualifications or the assessor skill set from—the Training and Education Training Package.
http://asqa.gov.au/news/2992/reminder-new-standards-clauses-come-into-effect-from-1-january-2016.html
Annual declaration on compliance. ASQA has now released the form and instructions for an RTO’s annual declaration on compliance with the Standards. This declaration can be made using an online form.
The first submission of the annual declaration will be required by 31 March 2016.
http://www.asqa.gov.au/news/3005/declaration-of-compliance-form-now-online.html
Security industry strategic review. ASQA has published the findings of its national strategic review of training for the security industry.
ASQA Chief Commissioner Chris Robinson said inconsistent licensing arrangements across states and territories and poor quality training and assessment were posing fundamental challenges to ensuring licensed security personnel were equipped to safely carry out their duties.
http://www.asqa.gov.au/news/2994/security-report.html
A new ASQANET portal is coming soon. ASQAnet is a web portal that allows RTOs to lodge applications and other information with ASQA.
At present, ASQAnet is limited to VET application services; however, this will soon be changing. ASQA is currently developing a system that will replace ASQAnet and provide users with a much broader range of services and cater for the needs of more of our external stakeholders.
http://www.asqa.gov.au/news/3004/a-new-asqanet-portal-is-coming-soon.html
Email scam alert. ASQA has received a number of calls regarding a possible email scam using the details listed on training.gov.au (TGA).
It appears an email is sent from the listed RTO’s CEO email address to another contact person listed on TGA advising there is an urgent request. Once the email is responded to, a request is received from the ‘CEO’ for urgent transfer of funds. RTOs are advised to report the scam to Scamwatch and contact TGA.
USI update
Extension to ‘single-day course’ exemption from USI requirements. The USI initiative became mandatory from 1 January 2015 for all nationally recognised VET delivery, except where specific exemptions apply.
The temporary partial exemption for ‘single-day courses’ from the USI was scheduled to lapse on 31 December 2015.
Following an amendment to the Student Identifiers (Exemptions) Instrument 2014 this exemption has been extended until 31 December 2016.
VET reform
Narrowing the range of VET FEE-HELP courses. The federal government is looking at narrowing the range of courses that are eligible for VET FEE-HELP.
In an interview on Sydney radio 2UE, the Minister for Vocational Education and Skills, Luke Hartsuyker said the government was looking at curtailing public funding for courses of “dubious value”.
https://ministers.education.gov.au/hartsuyker/interview-tim-webster-2ue-and-changes-vet-coming-effect-today
New Skills Service Organisations announced. The Minister for Vocational Education and Skills, Luke Hartsuyker, has announced the five organisations selected as Skills Service Organisations to work with Industry Reference Committees to develop modern and relevant training packages.
http://ministers.education.gov.au/hartsuyker/new-skills-service-organisations-announced
Quality of VET assessment. At the 20 November 2015 meeting of the COAG Industry and Skills Council it was agreed the Minister for Vocational Education and Skills, the Hon Luke Hartsuyker MP, would consult with VET stakeholders and all jurisdictions on reform options to improve assessment in VET.
To support this consultation process, the Quality of assessment in vocational education and training – Discussion Paper has been released to seek stakeholder views on reforms to improve the conduct of assessment in VET.
http://www.education.gov.au/improving-quality-assessment-vet
Change control document for VET FEE-HELP reform. On 21 January 2016 the Department of Training and Education published a change control document that provides a comparison table to identify the changes from VET Guidelines 2015 to Higher Education Support VET Guidelines 2015.
https://docs.education.gov.au/node/39416
Recovering student loans from overseas residents. From 1 January 2016, Australian graduates residing overseas are required to notify the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) to arrange repayments.
Minister Birmingham said recouping debts under the Higher Education Loan Programme (HELP) or Trade Support Loan (TSL) scheme would ensure Australia’s world-class, income-contingent student loans scheme was fairer and more sustainable into the future.
http://ministers.education.gov.au/birmingham/recovering-student-loans-overseas-residents-0
Councils and committees
Video message from John Pollaers. In a short audio-visual message, Mr John Pollaers, Chair of the AISC, reflects on the Committee’s progress during its first six months of operation.
Mr Pollaers also emphasises the importance of gathering stakeholder views and the critical role of Industry Reference Committees (IRCs) in helping to identify the skills needed to maximise Australia’s productivity, innovation and competitiveness.
https://www.education.gov.au/videos/audio-visual-message-chair-australian-industry-and-skills-committee
AISC 2016 meeting dates
- 18 February 2016: Melbourne
- 21 and 22 March 2016: Sydney
- 5 May 2016: Darwin
- 15 June 2016: Canberra
- 28 July 2016: Brisbane
- 8 and 9 September 2016: Sydney
- 20 October 2016: Adelaide
- 1 December 2016: Hobart
NCVER update
AVETMISS reporting. The collection window for reporting 2015 AVETMISS data opened on the 4 January 2016. All RTOs who delivered nationally accredited training in 2015 are required to report their training activity by 29 February 2016.
http://www.ncver.edu.au/wps/portal/vetdataportal/restricted/supportContent/!
Training Package News
TGA updates
Training package changes. There are new releases of the following training packages:
- ICT Release 2.0: 14 January 2016
- ICT Release 3.0: 18 January 2016
- ICP Release 2.0: 15 January 2016
- CUA Release 2.0: 15 January 2016
- BSB Release 2.0: 14 January 2016
- FNS Release 2.0: 14 January 2016
Events, Resourcing & Funding News
Australian apprenticeship update
Click on the link below to view the Training Package qualifications recently implemented in States and Territories.
http://www.aatinfo.com.au/getattachment/c7c3874b-6388-4686-bddc-1e33ed806789/file.aspx
Sydney Build 2016 Expo
The CPSISC is taking part in the Sydney Build 2016 Exhibition on 10-11 March 2016 at Australian Technology Park, Sydney and has issued an invitation to attend the two-day event for free.
http://www.sydneybuildexpo.com/register/
Recovering funding from providers
The Victorian government is in the process of recovering $30 million paid to training providers following a quality audit.
The Department of Education and Training says it has investigated 36 providers, resulting in the termination of eight government-funded training contracts. A further four providers have been issued with an intention to terminate notice while another four have been allowed to continue training but with restrictions imposed.
The Minister for Training and Skills Steve Herbert said the government is introducing stricter contracts for 2016 and will spend $30 million over the next three years to identify high risk training providers.
http://www.steveherbertmp.com.au/media-releases/quality-blitz-recovering-30-million-in-government-funds/
Recent VET Publications
Towards more effective continuing education and training for Australian workers
Stephen Billett, Sarojni Choy, Darryl Dymock, Ray Smith, Amanda Henderson, Mark Tyler, Ann Kelly
A more holistic continuing education and training system, one that acknowledges, supports and recognises the value of work-based learning, would better address the ongoing needs of Australian workers. But a widespread learning culture with support from policy-makers, employers, training providers and employees is required to make the most of such a system. These are some of the findings to emerge from a three-year program of research that aimed to investigate what might form the basis of an effective continuing education and training system. This report discusses the final stage of the project and proposes ways forward.
http://www.ncver.edu.au/wps/portal/vetdataportal/restricted/publicationContent/!
Government-funded students and courses – January to September 2015
NCVER
This publication provides a summary of data relating to students, programs, training providers and funding in Australia’s government-funded vocational education and training (VET) system (broadly defined as all activity delivered by government providers and government-funded activity delivered by community education and other registered providers).
http://www.ncver.edu.au/wps/portal/vetdataportal/restricted/publicationContent/!
Balancing consistency and flexibility in student training entitlements: research overview
Kaye Bowman, Suzy McKenna, Tabatha Griffin
This research overview summarises the work undertaken by Kaye Bowman and Suzy McKenna that explored the jurisdictional approaches to student training entitlement funding and associated provider quality standards and the implications for the fundamental principles of the national training system.
http://www.ncver.edu.au/wps/portal/vetdataportal/restricted/publicationContent/!
Related reports are:
- Jurisdictional approaches to student training entitlements: commonalities and differences (Research report)
- Student entitlement models in Australia’s national training system: expert views (Occasional paper)
- The development of Australia’s national training system: a dynamic tension between consistency and flexibility (Occasional paper)
Other News of Interest
CS&HISC closure. The Community Services & Health Industry Skills Council (CS&HISC) has announced they have been defunded and their office closed its operations on 18 December 2015, as their contract ceased on 31 December 2015.
http://www.cshisc.com.au/media-centre/latest-news/closure-of-cshisc/
The news articles presented in this edition of VET News have been researched and prepared by Anne Maree Newbery.
Copyright © Newbery Consulting 2016, All rights reserved.
Our mailing address is:
enquiries@newberyconsulting.com.au
Update Subscription Preferences
CEO Annual Declaration – Here we go!
Hi there,
I have been getting many questions about the approaching requirement for RTO Chief Executive Officers to submit an annual declaration to the National Regulator about their compliance. The declaration is due by the 31st Mar 2016 (see here) for the details on the ASQA website.
Why is this required? For those who are not aware, Clause 8.4 of the Standards for Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) 2015 requires that:
The RTO provides an annual declaration on compliance with these Standards to the VET Regulator and in particular whether it:
- currently meets the requirements of the Standards across all its scope of registration and has met the requirements of the Standards for all AQF certification documentation it has issued in the previous 12 months; and
- has training and assessment strategies and practices in place that ensure that all current and prospective learners will be trained and assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Standards.
The common thread in the questions I am getting is concern and anxiety over informing ASQA that you currently have some non-compliance. Other clients are also concerned that, whilst they are confident they are compliant and have done everything reasonably possible to ensure compliance,, what are the ramifications if they have an audit in six months and an auditor finds the RTO non-compliant? These are all reasonable concerns to have.
Now in responding to these questions and concerns, I want to reflect on why this requirement has been introduced. It is intended to require a CEO to take personal responsibility for the compliance of the RTO. Of course, that responsibility has always been there but by getting the CEO to formally reflect on their organisations compliance and to make a “declaration” to the regulator about the current state of compliance, it will cause some to take their responsibility under the Act more seriously. I personally think it is a great initiative. It is smart. Having worked in VET regulation for many years, this is what I would call a passive regulatory measure. It costs the regulator very little to administer but will be reasonably effective at instilling greater awareness and responsibility in the sector for compliance and might even contribute to improving the positive culture of compliance. I might be going a bit far with that last bit, but you get my drift! 🙂 It is a small and simple initiative for the regulator but it is likely to produce positive outcomes that are disproportionate to the effort required to deploy it. Smart!
Now,, back to the initial question, should CEOs be concerned about how they respond to these declarations? The simple answer is, don’t be concerned but you should take this very seriously. You are completing a declaration and the underpinning requirement of that is to provide truthful information. In defining a “Statutory Declaration” the Attorney-General’s Department identifies it as: a written statement that allows a person to declare something to be true. So I totally recommend the truth. It never fails. Now, accepting that, the vast majority of RTOs are not compliant all the time. Its a fact. The difference is that some are blissfully ignorant about their compliance and carry on thinking that they are fully compliant and the best thing since sliced bread and others (our clients) accept that compliance takes constant work and requires good systems, advice and monitoring. Now the “others” in the last sentence will know where their areas of compliance weakness are. They will know what needs to be done to get compliant and those actions will be either happening or be scheduled to occur. Now across all of our ongoing clients there would be probably be less than 12 across the country that both them and I would agree, they are fully compliant. Their systems and monitoring is so good that I struggle to find any non-compliance when I visit. Their last couple of ASQA audits have resulted in no non-compliance. These guys can complete the declaration with confidence! But,, these RTOs are rare as rocking horse,,, you know. All other good RTOs have some non-compliance and the good thing is they acknowledge that and are getting on with addressing it.
Ok,, a few points:
Is this a Statutory Declaration? This is not a Statutory Declaration made in accordance with the Statutory Declarations Act 1959. ASQA have called it a Declaration to encourage CEOs to consider it very carefully (which they should) but it is not the same as a Statutory Declaration. I completed it yesterday and it is a basic web form which is distributed by an email marketing and communications business called Vision6. It requires no sign-in or authentication. It relies only on information which is already publically available to identify the RTO about which the declaration is being made. So in effect anyone could submit a declaration about any RTO on the national training register! The link to access the “Declaration” is available to the public on the ASQA website. Here it is here if you are interested: http://ems.gs/3pwg0kObwfj. It requires no signature and no witness, so I think we can safely say it is not really a declaration but more of a,,,,, lets call it an ICF which stands for an Information Collection Form. 🙂 So,, if you are concerned about making an unintended false declaration, because the Statutory Declarations Act 1959 says that the penalty for making a false statement in a statutory declaration is a maximum of four years imprisonment, then you should relax.
What if I indicate a clause is compliant and latter an auditor finds it non-compliant? In completing the ICF,, sorry, declaration, you are simply providing information about your RTO to the regulator which the regulator is allowed to request and you are obliged to provide under your conditions of registration specified in Section 26 of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (see here). The information you provide will be accurate at the time and of course things change with time. The other point I would make is that your interpretation and the auditor’s interpretation of the standards is in the most part subjective. My point is, the roof will not fall in because you indicated something was compliant and latter it is found non-compliant. ASQA will just deal with this like any non-compliance according to the legislation and their obligation as a statutory authority to apply procedural fairness. You would have been better however to inform them of any issues and what you are doing about it rather than withhold that information. So, I come back to my earlier point, tell the truth and tell the story about all the good initiative you have underway to maintain and improve your compliance.
Where will your completed ICF (declaration) go? I can almost guarantee that Vision6 will either feed this data into an ASQA database which has been built or will present it to ASQA in a media that allows them to generate reports and interrogate the data. I.e how many RTOs in SA responded “No” to Standard 3, under question 2.2. I actually would be surprised if they had not considered that level of sophistication in their design of this. In the majority it will be accessible to the guys in Risk located in Brisbane. Risk will refer to your declaration when they are planning regulatory activity in response to an application you have submitted. I am sure it will also be available to Regional Managers and maybe Principle Auditors when they are also planning an audit. ASQA currently has 4030 RTOs that it regulates. They are not going to review every declaration they receive. I am sure they will review some from RTOs they consider high risk and they may have built in the capability to red flag a submission if a certain number of responses are indicated as “No”. In the majority I expect your declaration will only see the light of day if you make an application to the regulator or inform the regulator of a significant change or event.
In conclusion, I recommend that you treat this like an annual report card on yourself to the regulator. If you have areas of perceived non-compliance, then declare it. Make sure you include lots of detail about what actions you have taken and actions you have planned to address these non-compliances. Don’t be afraid of the truth. It always wins out. The last point is make sure you submit your declaration by the due date. Failure to do so would constitute a breach of your conditions of registration.
Good Training,
Joe Newbery
Published: 1st February 2016
Copyright © Newbery Consulting 2015. All rights reserved.
VET News – 23 December 2015
Hi there,
I hope this newsletter finds you well. Well it’s been a big year (as always!) in the VET sector. We have seen some significant changes including the following:
- The introduction of the Unique Student Identifier (USI) from 1 January 2015
- The first compulsory Total VET Activity report submitted in February 2015
- The introduction of the new Standards for Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) 2015 in April 2015
- Introduction of the VET FEE-HELP Guidelines from 1 July 2015
- Commencing the process of replacing Industry Skills Councils with Skills Service Organisations in August 2015
Of course there were many other less significant reforms throughout the year. Overall it has been a relatively turbulent year for change. Of significance has been the impact of the problems in the VET Fee Help market. You will know that I have been a vocal critic of those profiteering in this area of our sector at the expense of students. I am pleased with the steps taken by the Government and Regulatory Authorities to clean up this market. I am hopeful that those RTOs who have been investigated and found to have acted unlawfully or unethically are brought to account. I am also hopeful that, in this process of reform that those responsible for administering the VET Fee Help program are also looking at their own processes.
Is someone asking the question, how a brand new RTO can get access to the VET Fee Help contract and within two years of their initial registration collect over 100 million dollars in HELP fees whilst achieving very poor completions? I mean,, why was there not checkpoints or mechanisms to flag these providers at say the 5 or 10 million dollar mark? Clearly there were problems with the contract management arrangements in the Department. I acknowledge that the VET Fee Help Amendment Bill will prevent some of these things happening in the future. But seriously!! What was happening in the Department over the period 2012-2014 when everything got out of control? It is fine for the media to blame private providers, but what about the responsible Department and the individuals in the Department that had personal responsibility for overseeing these contracts? This article published in the Herald yesterday Click Here includes a great graphic that also explains how these scams work and how the money is distributed throughout the student recruitment chain.
I sincerely hope that we are now on the down cycle of cleaning up this sector. It has been a very damaging period for the reputation of the VET sector generally. This is frustrating as we have some fantastic providers who are delivering very high quality education and training to their students. We must work harder at getting the good stories out there as the regulator cleans out the bad providers. I hope that 2016 is a year when the reputation and integrity of our sector will start to repair. We can have such a positive impact on the lives of our students and on the industries we support.
Newbery Consulting is now closing for a well-earned break. Some staff will return on the 4th Jan 2016 as we have an update going out for RTO Data. In closing, I would like to just publically thank our wonderful team of staff and contractors. It has been another great year for us. I am so inspired by their commitment and hard work to support our clients.
I hope you all have a safe and restful time over the Christmas and New Year period.
Good training,
Joe Newbery
As always we invite new subscribers at: Subscribe to VET News
If you have some news, send it to us at news@newberyconsulting.com.au
Compliance & Regulatory News
ASQA update
First annual declaration of compliance due in March 2016. Clause 8.4 of the Standards for Registered Training Organisations 2015 require each RTO to provide ASQA with an annual declaration on compliance with the Standards. An RTO must confirm to ASQA that it:
- systematically monitors the RTO’s compliance, and
- implements preventive and corrective improvements where considered necessary.
The first submission of the annual declaration is required by 31 March 2016.
http://asqa.gov.au/news/2978/first-annual-declaration-of-compliance-will-be-due-in-march-2016.html
Aged and community care webinar recording. During November, ASQA and the Community Services and Health Industry Skills Council (CS&HISC) hosted a series of free webinars for RTOs offering qualifications in aged and community care.
The interactive webcasts provided an update on what has been achieved since the release of ASQA’s strategic review, including the implementation of the Standards for Registered Training Organisations 2015 and revisions to the training package.
A video of the webinar can be viewed on ASQA’s YouTube channel;
https://www.youtube.com/user/ASQAvideos
Strategic review of equine training. ASQA has released the findings of its national Strategic Review of training in equine training programs, which was prompted by the tragic death of a young student in a horse riding accident whilst undertaking training.
Eleven recommendations have been made to address the concerns that ASQA identified during the review.
http://asqa.gov.au/news/2973/eleven-recommendations-to-enhance-equine-training1.html
Update on targeted audits of VET FEE-HELP providers. ASQA has released additional details following the report of its findings on 20 October 2015.
This includes information on five RTOs were still subject to ongoing regulatory scrutiny by ASQA at the time of the report’s release.
http://asqa.gov.au/news/2968/update-on-targeted-audits-of-vet-fee-help-providers.html
Statement regarding Phoenix Institute of Australia Pty Ltd. On 23 November 2015 ASQA cancelled the registration of Phoenix Institute of Australia Pty Ltd (RTO 21582) as a provider of vocational education and training (VET) services, including to overseas students.
ASQA’s decision will take effect from 6 January 2016. The provider is able to seek a review of ASQA’s decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
http://asqa.gov.au/news/2959/statement-regarding-phoenix-institute-of-australia-pty-ltd.html
New CHC33015 Certificate III in Individual Support. On 6 August 2015 CHC33015 Certificate III in Individual Support superseded the Certificate III qualifications in Aged Care, Home and Community Care and Disability. The new qualification now has these three areas of care as specialisations.
ASQA advises that the new qualification and its three specialisations are not equivalent to any of the superseded qualifications. RTOs will therefore have to apply to ASQA to add this qualification to scope if they wish to deliver it.
http://asqa.gov.au/news/2958/new-chc33015-certificate-iii-in-individual-support.html
VET Reform
Amendment Bill for VET FEE-HELP (VFH) reform. The Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP Reform) Bill 2015 was finally passed by both Houses of Parliament on 3 December 2015, with an effective date of 1 January 2015.
On 8 December 2015 the Department of Education and Training issued VFH providers with an update (not publicly available) that provided no indication of any transitional period for the implement of the changes. Needless to say it has been a busy month for VFH providers. As at the date of writing no formal amendment to the VET Guidelines 2015 has yet been published.
The amendment will include:
- A range of student protection requirements
- A freeze on loan growth at 2015 levels
- Changes to approval criteria for new providers
- Changes to financial viability requirements for providers
- Changes to payment arrangements.
One of the most significant changes, especially for new VFH providers, will the freeze on loan growth. VET providers will only be able to offer VFH loans up to the maximum of their 2015 loan amounts, providing no opportunity for expansion.
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r5535_ems_70f921f2-7cd5-40b5-99d0-90ddf526f2e8/upload_pdf/504005-b.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf
VET sector stakeholders endorse government’s deregulation agenda. In a media release on 13 November 2015, the Minister for Vocational Education and Skills, the Hon Luke Hartsuyker MP said that a recent survey by ASQA showed that 74 per cent of industry stakeholders agreed or strongly agreed that VET regulatory reforms implemented in 2014 had reduced the regulatory burden on the sector.
https://ministers.education.gov.au/hartsuyker/vet-sector-stakeholders-endorse-governments-deregulation-agenda
Councils and Committees
COAG Industry Skills Council Communiqué – 20 November 2015. The skills session of the Council of Australia Governments (COAG) Industry and Skills Council met in Hobart on 20 November. This was the first session chaired by the Hon Luke Hartsuyker MP, Australian Government Minister for Vocational Education and Skills.
To ensure high quality within the system, the CISC agreed that further reform options be developed to improve the quality of assessment of student training outcomes. CISC agreed that Minister Hartsuyker will consult with VET stakeholders and jurisdictions on options to improve assessment in VET and report back to CISC with possible reform options in 2016.
https://docs.education.gov.au/documents/communique-coag-industry-and-skills-council-meetings-skills-ministers-20-november-2015
Australian Industry Skills Committee Communiqué – 1 December 2015. The Australian Industry and Skills Committee held its fifth meeting in Hobart on 1 December 2015 chaired by Mr John Pollaers.
https://docs.education.gov.au/node/39001
COAG Communiqué – 11 December 2015. At its 41st meeting today in Sydney, COAG focussed on reforms to drive economic growth, improve living standards and make our community safer.
The Council noted that further work will be undertaken on options to reform vocational education and training, for initial consideration at COAG’s first meeting in 2016.
https://www.coag.gov.au/node/529
USI Update
In the latest update from the Unique Identifiers Registrar on 1 December 2015 it was reported that we have officially reached over 3.8 Million USIs.
The update includes:
- Fresh new look website!
- New USI helpline
- Transcripts are coming – Get your data right!
- Inform, Create/Collect, Verify and Report!
http://usitaskforce.cmail19.com/t/ViewEmail/t/EE784D54C8CD169E/20DDE2CF102209CDF6A1C87C670A6B9F
Student Identifiers Registrar appointed. Minister for Vocational Education and Skills the Hon Luke Hartsuyker has welcomed the appointment of Mr Jason Coutts as the Unique Student Indentifiers (USI) Registrar, responsible for overseeing the USI initiative nationally. Mr Coutts has over 20 years’ experience in the education sector, including the role of Head of the USI Taskforce.
http://ministers.education.gov.au/hartsuyker/student-identifiers-registrar-appointed
Training Package News
TGA Updates
Training package changes. There are new releases of the following training packages:
- MSM Release 1.0: 15 December 2015
- RII Release 2.0: 14 December 2015
- HLT Release 3.0: 8 December 2015
- CHC Release 3.0: 8 December 2015
- NWP Release 1.0: 7 December 2015
- SIS Release 2.0: 7 December 2015
- MEA Release 1.3: 17 November 2015
Events, Resourcing & Funding News
Australian apprenticeship update
Click on the link below to view the Training Package qualifications recently implemented in States and Territories.
http://www.aatinfo.com.au/getattachment/41c14afd-6aa8-4f07-87db-20e83dd31658/file.aspx
Victorian VET funding review
The Victorian government has released the Final Report of The VET Funding Review (Mackenzie Report) with 109 recommendations.
Skills minister Steve Herbert says the government accepts the “general thrust” of the report and its recommendations. It will take the next year to work through design and implementation issues and to consult with stakeholders ahead of the introduction of a new funding model in 2017.
http://vetfundingreview.vic.gov.au/docs/VET_Funding_Review.pdf
Recent VET Publications
Financial information 2014
This publication provides information on how government-funded vocational education and training (VET) in Australia is financed and where the money is spent. The publication is based on 2014 data provided by the Australian government, and state and territory government departments responsible for administering public funds for Australia’s VET system.
http://www.ncver.edu.au/wps/portal/vetdataportal/restricted/publicationContent/!
Supporting tertiary students with a disability or mental illness: good practice guide
Through the implementation of the principles outlined in this good practice guide, teaching staff and disability services staff in tertiary institutions will be better positioned to provide additional supports for students with a disability or mental illness. Based on two research reports, which consider the perspectives of students, disability services workers and teaching staff, this guide offers a wide range of individual and institution-level learning supports with the aim of improving the educational experience and rate of course completions for students with a disability or mental illness.
http://www.ncver.edu.au/wps/portal/vetdataportal/restricted/publicationContent/!
Interpreting total VET activity data
Following the release of total VET activity (TVA) data, NCVER has added to the information available about this important data collection, including information about interpreting TVA data. NCVER will continue to add fact sheets and other information to the range of TVA products to help further understanding of this significant release of data.
http://www.ncver.edu.au/wps/portal/vetdataportal/restricted/newsEventsOpinionpieces/
http://www.ncver.edu.au/wps/portal/vetdataportal/restricted/publicationContent/!
Industry restructuring and job loss: helping older workers get back into employment
Restructuring in the Australian manufacturing industry has resulted in many Australians being displaced from their jobs. This particularly impacts older, lower-skilled workers. Involving an extensive review of past research and case studies in four states, this research identifies practices that can assist with the successful skills transfer, re-skilling and the attainment of new jobs by displaced older workers in the manufacturing industry.
http://www.ncver.edu.au/wps/portal/vetdataportal/restricted/publicationContent/
The news articles presented in this edition of VET News have been researched and prepared by Anne Maree Newbery.
Copyright © 2014 Newbery
VET News – 19 November 2015
Hello everyone,
I hope this newsletter finds you all well. I highly recommend reviewing the VET Fee Help audit report released by ASQA recently. I think that we must keep in mind that the majority of providers in the VET Fee Help market are providing great services. I am certainly please however that ASQA is taking action to clean up this sector of the industry.
Joe Newbery
As always we invite new subscribers at: Subscribe to VET News
If you have some news, send it to us at: news@newberyconsulting.com.au
Compliance & Regulatory News
ASQA update
Findings from VET FEE-HELP audit. On 20 October 2015 ASQA released the findings from its VET FEE-HELP audit project. The project was launched in April following an increase in the number of complaints against RTOs approved to participate in the VET FEE-HELP scheme.
ASQA undertook 21 targeted audits and interviewed more than 400 students.
You can read the media release here;
http://asqa.gov.au/news-and-publications/regulator-releases-findings-from-vet-fee-help-audit-project.html
You can read the report here;
http://asqa.gov.au/verve/_resources/VET_FEE-HELP_audit_report.pdf
ASQA Deputy Chief Commissioner to retire. Dr Dianne Orr has announced that she will retire from her statutory office as Commissioner with the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) next month.
http://asqa.gov.au/news/2951/asqa-deputy-chief-commissioner-to-retire.html
ASQA annual report 2014-15. ASQA released its annual report in Federal Parliament on 22 October 2015.
The report covers key achievements and developments for ASQA for the period 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015, including its regulation of training providers and the implementation of reforms aimed at reducing the regulatory burden on high performing providers while targeting activity toward poor quality providers.
http://asqa.gov.au/verve/_resources/ASQA_Annual_Report_2014-15.pdf
ASQA welcomes ACCC action. The ACCC has instituted proceedings in the Federal Court against Unique International College for allegedly making false or misleading representations and engaging in misleading or deceptive and unconscionable conduct when enrolling students into VET FEE-HELP funded courses.
ASQA announced last week that it had cancelled Unique’s registration as a provider of vocational education and training and educational services, including to overseas students.
http://asqa.gov.au/news/2936/asqa-welcomes-accc-action-against-training-provider.html
Article 2 in ASQA’s guidance series for VET accredited course developers. The standard addressed in this second article is VAC 7.2. This standard relates to the use of nationally endorsed units of competency where these are available, and where these are not available, the development of units of competency or modules.
http://asqa.gov.au/course-accreditation/standards-for-vet-accredited-courses/demonstrating-compliance-standard-7.2.html
Free webinar for aged and community care training providers. RTOs offering qualifications in aged and community care will shortly receive an invitation from ASQA to register for one of three free webcasts being hosted later this month by ASQA and the Community Services and Health Industry Skills Council (CS&HISC).
http://asqa.gov.au/news/2950/asqa-and-skills-council-to-host-free-webinar-for-aged-and-community-care-training-providers.html
VRQA update
Employers lose ability to employ commercial cookery apprentices. The VRQA has investigated 76 employers employing 152 commercial cookery apprentices to check that apprentices were being properly supervised and trained as part of a regulatory campaign.
A range of problems were uncovered and as a result of the investigation 93 training contracts have been cancelled (including 29 voluntary cancellations) and 45 employer approvals have been revoked.
http://www.vrqa.vic.gov.au/enews/Pages/Edition-48/article1.aspx?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VRQA%20e-news%20-%20Edition%2048&utm_content=VRQA%20e-news%20-%20Edition%2048+CID_eba4d21b79ce3e1b4498dd724bcbb6f7&utm_source=VRQA%20electronic%20newsletter&utm_term=Read%20more
VRQA Annual Report 2014–15. The report provides details of significant achievements during the 2014–15 financial year, as well as operational and financial data.
http://www.vrqa.vic.gov.au/enews/Pages/Edition-48/article4.aspx?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VRQA%20e-news%20-%20Edition%2048&utm_content=VRQA%20e-news%20-%20Edition%2048+CID_eba4d21b79ce3e1b4498dd724bcbb6f7&utm_source=VRQA%20electronic%20newsletter&utm_term=VRQA%20Annual%20Report%20201415
VET FEE-HELP reform
On 15 October 2015, the Minister for Vocational Education and Skills the Hon Luke Hartsuyker, introduced legislation that will strengthen the protections for students in the Vocational Education and Training (VET) sector and push unscrupulous training providers out of the market.
The Higher Education Amendment (VET FEE-HELP Reform) Bill 2015 amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 and seeks to prevent inappropriate enrolments and debts by:
- introducing a two day cooling off period between enrolment and the application for a VET FEE-HELP loan so that course enrolment is no longer confused with the loan application process;
- introducing minimum pre-requisites such as literacy and numeracy to ensure students can complete the higher level VET courses (diploma level and above) for which VET FEE-HELP is available; and
- requiring a parent’s or guardian’s signature before a student under 18 years can request a VET FEE-HELP loan to protect younger students.
The Bill will also further protect students and taxpayers by:
- making it easier for a student to have their debt cancelled where they have been signed up for a loan inappropriately and for the Government to recoup the cost from providers;
- introducing minimum registration and trading history requirements to ensure new VET FEE-HELP provider applicants have a proven history of delivering quality training;
- introducing infringement notices and financial penalties for breaches of the VET FEE-HELP Guidelines; and
- technical amendments to strengthen the Department’s administration of the scheme and its partnerships with ASQA to monitor and enforce compliance.
https://ministers.education.gov.au/hartsuyker/vet-fee-help-bill-push-dodgy-providers-out-market
TAC Update
The latest publication from TAC includes the following updates:
- Maximum registration period increased from five to seven year
- Addition of new training products
- Removal of superseded training products and removed / deleted qualifications
- Inclusion of Skill Sets in RTOs’ implicit scope of registration
- Planning for 2016/Christmas Shutdown
http://www.tac.wa.gov.au/newsandevent/Pages/TAC-Update—Issue-34—November-2015.aspx
New standards for higher education
A new Higher Education Standards Framework legislative instrument has been made by the Minister for Education and Training, Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham and was tabled in Parliament on 12 October 2015
http://www.senatorbirmingham.com.au/Media-Centre/Media-Releases/ID/2856/New-Standards-Raise-the-Bar-on-University-Student-Experience
Events, Resourcing & Funding News
Australian apprenticeship update
Click on the link below to view the Training Package qualifications recently implemented in States and Territories.
http://www.aatinfo.com.au/getattachment/c7c3874b-6388-4686-bddc-1e33ed806789/file.aspx
New National Work Experience Programme
A new National Work Experience Programme is now available to help job seekers gain experience and confidence while demonstrating skills to potential employers.
The work experience programme will give employers the opportunity to see if a job seeker is a good fit for their organisation and offers employers the opportunity for a wage subsidy where they offer a job seeker paid employment.
You can read the media release here;
http://ministers.employment.gov.au/work-experience-help-job-seekers-work-0
You can read the programme here;
https://www.employment.gov.au/national-work-experience-programme
Australian Government training resources
The Australian Government Department of Social Services has funded the development of complimentary Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Training Resources to address the need for culturally appropriate training resources suitable for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students.
http://resources.hktc.com.au/login-form/
Recent VET Publications
Total VET students and course 2014
This publication gives a summary of vocational education and training (VET) delivered in 2014 by Australian training providers. This picture of training activity is otherwise known as ‘total VET activity’, to reflect that the information is now collected from all types of providers and not merely the providers receiving Commonwealth and state funding. In this publication, information is provided on the number of training providers, students, enrolments in programs, enrolments in subjects, hours of delivery and program completions.
http://www.ncver.edu.au/wps/portal/vetdataportal/restricted/publicationContent/!
Employers’ use and views of the VET system 2015
This survey collects information about employers’ use and views of the vocational education and training (VET) system and the various ways employers use the VET system to meet their skill needs. Information collected is designed to measure employers’ engagement and satisfaction with the VET system.
The 2015 survey data show that while employers’ overall use of VET remains steady, the proportion of employers with apprentices and trainees continues to decline. Despite this decline, 81.7% of employers were satisfied that apprentices and trainees are receiving the skills they require through training, a similar proportion to 2013.
http://www.ncver.edu.au/wps/portal/vetdataportal/restricted/publicationContent
Government funded students and courses – January to June 2015
From January to June this year, 1.07 million students enrolled in Australia’s government-funded VET system newly reported data indicates. For the second time, NCVER has published a quarterly report on government-funded training; it shows 63.4% of students were enrolled at TAFE and other government providers, 31.5% at private training providers and 4.5% at community education providers. In terms of qualifications, 37.2% of all students enrolled in certificate III qualifications.
http://www.ncver.edu.au/wps/portal/vetdataportal/restricted/publicationContent/!
Alternative pathways to apprenticeships – good practice guide
This good practice guide collates the relevant key findings for education practitioners and workplace supervisors from three research reports that look at different aspects of earlier completion such as competency-based progression and recognition of prior learning. Although the research highlights the benefits of completion, it also identifies gaps in communicating and supporting alternative pathways between policy-makers and program administrators, as well as communications between the training provider and the workplace. (NB. The three research reports can also be accessed from the link below.)
http://www.ncver.edu.au/wps/portal/vetdataportal/restricted/publicationContent/!
Other News of Interest
Queensland Government establishes Training Ombudsman
On 14 October 2015, the Minister for Training and Skills, Yvette D’Ath, outlined the remit of the Training Ombudsman, as part of the government’s commitment to providing quality training and reinvigorating the vocational education and training (VET) sector in Queensland.
http://www.qld.gov.au/education/training/pages/trainingombudsman.html
Launch of Total VET Activity report
A more comprehensive picture of national training is emerging with the first release of new data that indicates almost a quarter (23.3%) of working-aged people (15 to 64 years) undertook some form of vocational education and training (VET) in 2014. The data, published by the National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER), was reported by 4601 Australian providers following the introduction of mandatory reporting of training activity.
http://www.ncver.edu.au/wps/portal/vetdataportal/restricted/media/!
Victoria training market half year report
The latest Victoria training market half year report shows a marked decline in government subsided training, with 12% fewer enrolments in 2015 compared to the same time in 2014. TAFE enrolments were at their lowest point in five years.
http://the-scan.com/2015/10/28/vic-tafe-enrolments-hit-5-year-low/
Federal government summit focuses on skills training
As reported in The Australian on 2 October 2015, the Turnbull government’s summit of business, trade union and community groups identified an overhaul of the training and education sector, a federal takeover of TAFE and changes to the work-for-the-dole scheme as key priorities. (The following link may require a subscription.)
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/subscribe/news/1/index.html?sourceCode=TAWEB_WRE170_a&mode=premium&dest=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/education/turnbull-summit-make-focus-on-skills-training-our-business/story-fn59nlz9-1227552994155?sv=464c7e7f835ee05cff21442c5c5bb708&memtype=anonymous
Recovering student loans from overseas students
The federal government expects to recover up to $30 million a year following the passage of laws that will require people living overseas to repay their student or trade support loans. Until now, people who took out a loan under the Higher Education Loan Programme (HELP) or a Trade Support Loan (TSL) and moved overseas were under no obligation to repay it. The new legislation will make it necessary for anyone earning above the $54,126 threshold to repay the loan, no matter where they live.
http://www.senatorbirmingham.com.au/Media-Centre/Media-Releases/ID/2866/Recovering-student-loans-from-overseas-residents
The news articles presented in this edition of VET News have been researched and prepared by Anne Maree Newbery.
Copyright © 2014 Newbery
VET News – 9 October 2015
Hello everyone,
Hope you are all well. Welcome to our October VET News and welcome to all of our new subscribers that have joined us this month. The big event for us in September was the National VET Conference in Adelaide which was staged by Velg Training. Velg as always did an amazing job and the conference was a great success. We used the conference as a point to celebrate our 10th year anniversary in business. We had so much fun and met up with many existing and new clients. We will definitely be attending the conference next year which is on the Gold Coast 15-16 Sep 2016.
I want to just make a special note to thank Sarah Funke our Operations Manager who completely planned and implemented all aspects of Newbery Consulting’s participation at the conference. This was no small task and involved many moving parts to coordinate and liaise with the conference organiser, suppliers, etc. The result was amazing and really is a credit to Sarah’s hard work and professionalism. It’s great to have such committed staff in our organisation. Enjoy the news.
Joe Newbery
As always we invite new subscribers at: Subscribe to VET News
If you have some news, send it to us at: news@newberyconsulting.com.au
Compliance & Regulatory News
ASQA update
Two new fact sheets. With its new capacity to issue infringement notices for breaches of relevant civil penalty provisions, ASQA has published a fact sheet to explain how infringement notices are issued, and to ensure RTOs understand their rights and obligations. The new fact sheet relating to third parties helps to clarify what constitutes a ‘third-party arrangement’ under the Standards, and provides guidance to RTOs in meeting the requirements of the Standards.
http://www.asqa.gov.au/media-and-publications/infringement-notices.html
http://www.asqa.gov.au/media-and-publications/third-party-arrangements.html
Strategic Review: Early childhood education and care training. ASQA has released a report on the findings from its national Strategic Review into early childhood education and care training. It has made 10 recommendations to address the issues that were identified in the sector, including the inclusion of minimum training requirements for each unit of competency and qualification across the whole vocational education and training sector.
You can read the report here; http://www.asqa.gov.au/verve/_resources/Strategic_Review_2015_Early_Childhood_Education_Report.pdf
You can read the media release here;
http://www.asqa.gov.au/news-and-publications/review-of-childcare-training-makes-10-recommendations.html
More guidance for accredited course developers. Over the coming months, the ASQA Accreditation team will be publishing information about each of the Standards for VET Accredited Courses 2012 to provide guidance to course developers on demonstrating compliance. ASQA are also planning to publish a range of fact sheets and a Users’ Guide to the Standards for VET Accredited Courses.
In its first edition, ASQA covers VAC 7.1—VET accredited courses are based on an established industry, enterprise, education, legislative or community need.
http://www.asqa.gov.au/course-accreditation/standards-for-vet-accredited-courses/demonstrating-compliance.html
RTO compliance is on the increase. ASQA’s Chief Commissioner Chris Robinson announced that compliance rates since new national Standards were implemented showed that 87 per cent of RTOs were compliant at the end of the audit process. This compares to 82.4 per cent compliance rate under the previous Standards. Mr Robinson attributed the increase in compliance rates to the new Standards being clearer, as well as ASQA’s efforts to increase the information and guidance it provides to RTOs. He said ASQA was planning to undertake another round of information sessions/briefings targeted specifically at RTOs in the first half of 2016.
http://www.asqa.gov.au/news-and-publications/compliance-with-training-standards-increasing.html
VRQA update
New powers for the VRQA. A number of new powers for the VRQA under the Education and Training Reform Amendment (Child Safe Schools) Act 2015 (the Act) were proclaimed on 1 July 2015 and are now in effect.
The new powers relate to the regulation of school education including the ability to accept an enforceable undertaking from the proprietor or principal of a registered school. An amended VRQA Enforceable Undertaking Policy has been published.
http://www.vrqa.vic.gov.au/enews/Pages/Edition-47/article1.aspx?
Closing date for applications to amend scope. Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) are reminded that all Form B applications to amend the scope of registration must be received by the VRQA no later than Monday 19 October 2015 in order for any required site audits to be scheduled in 2015.
http://www.vrqa.vic.gov.au/enews/Pages/Edition-47/article3.aspx?
NCVER update
The September edition of NCVER’s Data Support Bulletin has information on the following:
- Classification and validation updates
- Data retention & the Australian Privacy Principles
- Fixing validation errors
- Student Enrolment Form update
- Tips for 2015 submissions to NCVER
- Review of the AVETMIS Standard – call for feedback
- SMS vendor update
- Unique Student Identifier – tips when creating USIs for students
https://www.ncver.edu.au/wps/portal/vetdataportal/restricted/supportContent/
Training Package News
TGA updates
Training package changes. There are new releases of the following training packages:
SFL Release 1.0: 25 September 2015
MSF Release 1.3: 10 September 2015
CPP Release 2.0: 8 September 2015
MAR Release 3.0: 7 September 2015
AVI Release 1.0: 4 September 2015
Change to the way skill sets are displayed on training.gov.au (TGA). Back in July all RTOs had their TGA scope of registration automatically updated to show the skills sets they could deliver. This was based on the implicit units of competency for their existing scope of registration. The issue was that unlike implicit units, TGA automatically displayed the implicit skill set registration on an RTO’s scope. From 2 September, TGA will only display implicit skill set registration when the ‘Include implicit skill set scope’ option is selected.
http://www.asqa.gov.au/news/2883/listing-skill-sets-on-training.gov.au-will-soon-be-an-option.html
Events, Resourcing & Funding News
Australian apprenticeship update
Click on the links below to view the Training Package qualifications recently implemented in States and Territories.
http://www.aatinfo.com.au/getattachment/e998b2c9-36da-4fc9-99c3-f46fed1a18a2/file.aspx
Keynote presentations: National VET Conference
The 2015 National VET Conference in Adelaide on 17-18 September 2015 included keynote presentations from ASQA’s Chief Commissioner Chris Robinson who presented on Day 1 of the event, and Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham, Minister for Education and Training who presented on Day 2. Velg have posted videos of both presentations for your viewing pleasure.
Chris Robinson: https://vimeo.com/140376440
Simon Birmingham: https://vimeo.com/140280347
Decline in VET funding intensifies
VET spending in Australia has fallen back to levels of more than a decade ago, while funding for schools and higher education has soared, according to new research from the Mitchell Institute. The Institute says that one year on from research which showed spending on schooling and higher education far outstripping spending on VET, the trend has intensified.
Among the three sectors, expenditure on higher education has grown the fastest, up by over 40% in real terms in the eleven years to 2013-14. Expenditure on schools has grown by approximately 25% over the same period. Expenditure on VET has grown much more slowly, by around 15% to 2012-13, before experiencing a sharp decline in the most recent year, leaving VET expenditure only around 5% higher than 2003-4 levels.
http://www.mitchellinstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Expenditure_on_education_and_training_in_Australia_2015_Update_and_analysis.pdf
Expansion of Industry Skills Fund Youth Stream Pilots
Community organisations and businesses across Australia will now be able to benefit from the Industry Skills Fund’s Youth Stream Pilots: Youth Employment Pathways and Training for Employment Scholarships. The pilots will operate nationally until 30 June 2016 and aim to deliver positive outcomes for disengaged and unemployed young people.
http://www.vetreform.industry.gov.au/news/national-expansion-industry-skills-fund-youth-pilots
Broader access to subsidised training in NSW
The NSW government is to provide greater access to subsidised training for students with existing qualifications. The Minister for Skills John Barilaro announced that from 2016, students with a Certificate IV or higher qualification will be able to access subsidised training at the Foundation Skills and Certificates II and III levels, provided it is on the Skills List.
http://www.acpet.edu.au/uploads/files/A%20PATHWAY%20TO%20RESKILL%20FOR%20THE%20JOBS%20OF%20THE.pdf
Shake-up of apprenticeship funding
The federal government has embarked upon a shake-up of the $435 million apprenticeship incentives program and is exploring new models of apprenticeship delivery. On 3 September 2015, the then Assistant Minister for Education and Training Senator Simon Birmingham announced an advisory group to provide options for better targeting apprentice funding to some 80,000 employers.
https://ministers.education.gov.au/birmingham/inap-conference
NCVER webinar for RTOs planning to deliver degrees
The NCVER is hosting a free webinar on 20 October 2015 for VET providers who are exploring the addition of higher education delivery to their current suite of qualifications. Professor Victor Callan and Dr Kaye Bowman will discuss research on six trail blazer VET providers who have made the successful transition to delivering associate degrees and bachelor degrees, as well as VET qualifications.
http://www.ncver.edu.au/wps/portal/vetdataportal/restricted/newsEventsOpinionpieces/!
Recent VET Publications
Regulating and quality assuring VET: International developments – Josie Misko
To reduce regulatory burden and build trust in the VET system, accreditation and registration systems are increasingly utilising principles of responsive regulation and risk analysis to help increase compliance. Approaches to the regulation of VET in selected overseas countries are investigated, and detailed systems of accreditation and registration used for approving providers to deliver training and issue nationally recognised qualifications have been identified.
http://www.ncver.edu.au/wps/portal/vetdataportal/restricted/publicationContent/!
Other News of Interest
Ministry changes
Malcolm Turnbull was sworn in as Prime Minister on 15 September 2015 and announced the changes to his Ministry on 20 September 2015. This included appointments across the portfolios, including the VET sector.
You can read Malcolm Turnbull’s statement here;
http://www.pm.gov.au/media/2015-09-20/changes-ministry
You can read Simon Birmingham’s statement here;
https://ministers.education.gov.au/birmingham/media-statement
The Minister’s response to allegations against Phoenix Institute
Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham released a media statement on 17 September 2015 following allegations made by Fairfax Media against RTO Phoenix Institute and broker Education Circle.
He indicated that he has asked the Department of Education and Training to urgently investigate the matter and consider commencing the processes to remove the Phoenix Institute as a VET FEE-HELP provider. Senator Birmingham also requested that ASQA expedite its investigations in to this training provider and to consider suspending or revoking their license to operate as a training provider. The Senator has also requested that ASQA and the Department consider investigations into any other RTOs using Education Circle as a broker.
http://ministers.education.gov.au/birmingham/full-force-against-dodgy-providers
http://www.smh.com.au/national/vocational-education-the-biggest-getrich-quick-scheme-in-australia-20150916-gjnqwe.html
Possible class action against Evocca College
As recently reported by the ABC, Evocca College is facing a potential class action from hundreds of former students. Solicitor Benjamin Kramer said he is preparing to file documents on behalf of former Evocca College students. He will allege the company breached consumer law by providing sub-standard courses and using unfair marketing tactics to sign up students.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-27/evocca-facing-potential-class-action-from-former-students/6805148
Pharmacy training ‘a health risk’
As reported in The Australian on 3 September 2015, the Pharmacy Guild of Australia has given evidence to a Senate committee of fraudulent behaviour by private training firms that it says poses a public safety risk. Sue Bond, head of the Guild Pharmacy Academy told the Senate Education and Employment References Committee inquiry into the VET system that a pharmacy assistant Certificate III typically takes between 24 and 26 months, but that some RTOs were turning out graduates in a month.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/dud-pharmacy-training-a-health-risk/story-e6frgcjx-1227512205448?sv=c5af4c8f6d3dfe35fa23ca4868f00e27
Subscription may be required
The news articles presented in this edition of VET News have been researched and prepared by Anne Maree Newbery.
Copyright © 2014 Newbery Consulting
VET News – 19 August 2015
Hello everyone,
Welcome to the news for Aug 2015. Please take note of the VET Reform section. This initiative may take some time, but I personally think if would be a very positive move to centralise the funding into the federal Government.
Enjoy the news and good training!
Joe Newbery
As always we invite new subscribers at: Subscribe to VET News
If you have some news, send it to us at: news@newberyconsulting.com.au
Compliance & Regulatory News
ASQA Update
ASQA suspends registration of two Melbourne-based RTOs. On 5 August 2015 ASQA took the decision to immediately suspend the registration of St Stephen Institute of Technology and Symbiosis Institute of Technical Education.
This followed the resolution of Operation Aristotle, a joint investigation by the Australian Federal Police (AFP), the Australian Border Force (ABF) and ASQA which has seen three people charged over alleged involvement in a large scale fraud.
http://newsroom.border.gov.au/releases/three-charged-and-millions-of-assets-seized-in-joint-agency-investigation
http://asqa.gov.au/news/2861/asqa-suspends-registration-of-two-melbourne-based-rtos.html
Transition period extended for HLT51612 Diploma of Nursing. In response to a request from the Community Services and Health Industry Skills Council, the ASQA Commissioners agreed to extend the transition period of the HLT51612 Diploma of Nursing (Enrolled/Division 2) for an additional 18 months on the endorsement of the replacement HLT training package qualification. See the link below for a list of all qualifications that have approved extended transition periods.
http://asqa.gov.au/vet-registration/meet-the-requirements-of-ongoing-registration/maintain-a-current-scope-of-registration.html
CHC – Community Services (Release 2.0). This revised training package release includes some significant changes to qualification structures. I you have a qualification on your scope from CHC 08, then you need to review these changes.
http://training.gov.au/Training/Details/CHC
Amended FAQ response about overseas students undertaking additional training. ASQA has recently published a new response to a frequently asked question: ‘Can an overseas student who holds a student visa undertake additional study at the same time as their principal course?’ An overseas student in Australia on a student visa can undertake additional study at the same time as their principal course. However, any course they undertake must be registered on CRICOS and the student must have a confirmation of enrolment (CoE) for all study they undertake.
http://asqa.gov.au/faqs/frequently-asked-questions.html#cricos-elicos-compliance/can-an-overseas-student-who-holds-a-student-visa-undertake-additional-study-at-th
VET reform update
COAG lays groundwork for Commonwealth takeover of VET. Federal and state leaders have agreed to consider a proposal to shift responsibility for VET from the states to the Commonwealth. Following the recent COAG leaders retreat in Sydney, the meeting Communiqué outlined plans to consider a historic change in VET governance.
Quite ironically, the premiers of the two states that have not referred powers to ASQA, Western Australia and Victoria, have been tasked with bringing VET reform proposals to the next COAG meeting before the end of the year.
https://www.coag.gov.au/node/524
Expression of interest for skills service organisations. The Australian Government has invited applications for funding to be a skills service organisation. Skills service organisations will provide a range of independent activities to support industry reference committees to review and develop training products, including training packages.
http://www.senatorbirmingham.com.au/Media-Centre/Media-Releases/ID/2775/New-Support-to-Deliver-Job-Relevant-Training-Products
TAC update
Compliance Recognition Program. Similar to ASQA’s delegated regulatory authority, the TAC has announced its Compliance Recognition Program (CR Program) which is designed to provide RTOs that consistently demonstrate compliance, a degree of flexibility by removing the requirement for RTOs to submit applications or fees to the Council for amendment activity to their scope of registration.
http://www.tac.wa.gov.au/registration/CRP/Pages/default.aspx
Notification of third party agreements. In a special bulletin, the TAC has reminded its RTOs of their obligation to provide notification of all third party agreements and provided a link to the required notification form.
http://www.tac.wa.gov.au/newsandevent/Pages/TAC-Special-Bulletin—Third-Party-Agreements.aspx
Training Package News
TGA updates
Training package changes. There are new releases of the following training packages:
SIS10 Release 3.1: 21 July 2015
CSC Release 1.0: 3 August 2015
CPC08 Release 9.1: 5 August 2015
CHC Release 2.0: 6 August 2015
MEA Release 1.2: 6 August 2015
HLT Release 2.0: 6 August 2015
Events, Resourcing & Funding News
Australian apprenticeship update
Click on the links below to view the Training Package qualifications recently implemented in States and Territories.
http://www.aatinfo.com.au/getattachment/c7c3874b-6388-4686-bddc-1e33ed806789/file.aspx
Farewell dinner for Skillaroos
The 2015 WorldSkills Australia Skillaroos were officially farewelled at a ceremony in Sydney before heading off to the 43rd WorldSkills Competition in São Paulo, Brazil.
Senator the Hon Scott Ryan, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education and Training and the NSW Minister for Skills John Barilaro were on hand to farewell the 25-strong team at a ceremony at TAFE Sydney Institute.
https://ministers.education.gov.au/ryan/2015-worldskills-australia-skillaroos-farewell-dinner
National Skills Week
Now in its fifth year, National Skills Week aims to raise the status of practical and vocational learning, highlighting the talents, the skills, the career pathways and the value of apprentices and trainees across Australia. Events are planned from 24-30 August 2015.
http://www.nationalskillsweek.com.au/
Conference season is upon us
Here are some of the upcoming conference events in our industry.
- Australian Council for Private Education and Training (ACPET) 2015 National Conference and Asia
- Pacific International Education Forum: 26-28 August 2015, Melbourne
- International Network on Innovative Apprenticeship (INAP) Conference: 1-2 September 2015, Ballarat
- TAFE Directors Australia (TDA) 2015 National Conference: 10-11 September 2015, Hobart
- Velg Training 2015 National VET Conference: 17-18 September 2015, Adelaide
- Australian Council for Adult Literacy (ACAL) 2015 National Conference: 24-25 September, Adelaide
Recent VET Publications
SkillsDMC: Environment Scan 2015 mid-year update
SkillsDMC has issued an update of its E-Scan for 2015. The update highlights that despite some recent negative sentiment towards the outlook for Industry, the Mining Industry continues to perform to expectations.
http://www.skillsdmc.com.au/files/services/escan/2015EScan_midyear.pdf
Lessons from VET providers delivering degrees
Highlighting the strategic, capability and operational reasons why traditional vocational education and training (VET) providers move to the delivery of higher education qualifications in their own right, this report shows that delivering in the niche market areas where they already have strengths and constantly reviewing their higher education delivery are key elements of good practice.
http://www.ncver.edu.au/wps/portal/vetdataportal/restricted/publicationContent/
Click here for research summary: good practice guide:
http://www.ncver.edu.au/wps/portal/vetdataportal/restricted/publicationContent/
Other News of Interest
New CEO appointed to TEQSA
The federal government has appointed a high ranking UK official, Anthony McClaran, as the new CEO of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA). Mr McClaran has been appointed for a five year term starting on 12 October 2015. He is currently the CEO of the UK’s Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.
Announcing the appointment, the Minister for Education and Training, Christopher Pyne said Mr McClaran had led UK agencies through periods of significant change and external challenge.
https://ministers.education.gov.au/pyne/chief-executive-officer-appointed-teqsa
Are vocational streams the key to producing a more adaptable workforce?
Structures within the labour market shape the educational pathways and outcomes of graduates. However, the links between qualifications and jobs in Australia are sometimes weak. Education and training in vocational streams, rather than in specific occupational tasks, could result in a more sustainable and adaptable workforce.
http://www.ncver.edu.au/wps/portal/vetdataportal/restricted/insightArticle/
Fixing AVETMISS data errors
NCVER has developed the new fact sheet Fixing Validation Errors. Using a common error that is triggered in the AVETMISS Validation Software (AVS) as an example, the fact sheet outlines the steps for identifying and fixing the error which can be applied to all other error codes.
Access the fact sheet here: http://www.ncver.edu.au/wps/portal/vetdataportal/restricted/supportContent/
Education exports worth $18.1 billion
In a media release on 7 August 2015, the Minister for Education and Training the Hon Christopher Pyne announced that preliminary figures show that exports from Australia’s international education services sector reached a record high of $18.1 billion in 2014-15. The Minister said that this is up 14.2% on 2013-14 numbers and shows that Australia’s booming international education sector continues to go from strength to strength.
https://ministers.education.gov.au/pyne/education-exports-worth-181-billion
The news articles presented in this edition of VET News have been researched and prepared by Anne Maree Newbery.
Copyright © Newbery Consulting 2015, All rights reserved.
VET News – 21 July 2015
Hi everyone,
I hope things are ticking along nicely for you. Welcome to our newsletter for July.
This audit tool is the result of development and review over the past 4 months by lead consultants within Newbery Consulting. The criteria we have provided within each standard and clause go directly to the core of evaluating compliance and are presented in plain language. Where relevant, clauses have been combined within the tool to aid in their review and to assist RTOs to make sense of the standards which are so fragmented. Additional criteria have also been added which Newbery Consulting consider to be important in any internal audit and particularly when preparing for a regulatory audit.
You can access the new audit tool in Word format at the following pay on our website:
Newbery Consulting Audit Tool – Standards for RTOs 2015
Enjoy the news and good training!
Joe Newbery
As always we invite new subscribers at: Subscribe to VET News
If you have some news, send it to us at: news@newberyconsulting.com.au
Compliance and Regulatory News
ASQA update
ASQA Stakeholder Survey 2015. ASQA has engaged Australian Survey Research Pty Ltd (ASR) to conduct its annual survey of stakeholders. ASR will contact training providers and course owners by email and the email will contain each organisation’s unique link to the survey. The completion of the survey is voluntary.
http://asqa.gov.au/news/2844/asqa-stakeholder-survey-2015.html
Invoicing update: Annual fees reminder. ASQA’s annual fees were invoiced on 1 July 2015. Annual fees are based on an RTO’s scope of registration as at close of business on 30 June 2015. ASQA’s fee schedule includes information about how fees are calculated.
http://asqa.gov.au/news/2806/invoicing-update-annual-fees-reminder.html
Annual declaration on compliance. ASQA has advised that at present, no action on this declaration is required from RTOs. ASQA is currently working with a range of VET sector stakeholders to determine the content of this declaration and the timing of its collection. Further information will be published on ASQA’s website soon.
VET Reform Update
Changes effective 1 July 2015. A phase of the Australian Government’s major reforms to Australia’s vocational education and training system came into effect from 1 July 2015, through the introduction of the new Apprenticeship Network, changes to VET FEE-HELP, and funding for the Australian Skills Quality Authority.
http://www.vetreform.industry.gov.au/
USI Update
Changes effective 1 July 2015. The USI Registry System has recently been updated to include new functions for both students and training organisations.
http://www.usi.gov.au/Pages/june-2015-system-changes.aspx
TAC Update
Strategic industry audit – High risk work. The TAC is in the final stages of planning for a strategic industry audit of units that lead the high risk work licences in Western Australia. It is anticipated RTOs who have be selected as part of the audit sample will be contacted over the coming weeks, with audits being undertaken in August.The final report will be released in October 2015.
http://www.tac.wa.gov.au/newsandevent/Pages/TAC-Special-Bulletin—SIA-2015.aspx
VRQA Update
The VRQA’s latest newsletter has information about:
- The new Failure to Protect offence which comes into effect on 1 July 2015
- The launch of the SchoolMate app which is designed to help parents of school students to know more about what their children are learning under the AusVELS curriculum.
- Changes that remove the requirement for reporting CCOS data for RTOs who have submitted 2014 AVETMISS data.
http://www.vrqa.vic.gov.au/enews/pages/Edition-46/default.htm
Proposed ESOS changes
On 7 July 2015 the Australian Government released drafts of the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment Bills 2015 for public consultation. Minister for Education and Training, the Hon Christopher Pyne MP, said that “The proposals in these Bills simplify and streamline the regulation of international education. They follow extensive consultations with stakeholders on ways to improve the Education Services for Overseas Students (ESOS) framework”.
https://www.pyneonline.com.au/media-centre/media-releases/streamlined-regulation-to-reduce-red-tape-for-australias-international-education-providers
Training Package News
TGA Updates
Training package changes. There are new releases of the following training packages:
- BSB Release 1.2: 19 June 2015
- SIF Release 2.1: 9 July 2015
TGA now showing Skill Sets. The new Standards for VET Regulators requires that Skill Sets form an official part of an RTO’s scope. As a result, RTO scopes have now been automatically updated to reflect the capacity to deliver Skill Sets. The Skill Sets have been determined based on an RTO’s implicit and explicit scope items.
Events, Resources & Funding News
Australian apprenticeship update
Click on the link below to view the Training Package qualifications recently implemented in States and Territories.
http://newberyconsulting.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=38fe6335425568c3089975c08&id=e39e428f76&e=937034a34e
Qld funding boost
The Queensland government has allocated $337.2 million over 4 years for training initiatives in its budget delivered on 15 July 2015, with a focus on improving employment prospects and rebuilding the TAFE network.
http://the-scan.com/2015/07/21/queensland-budget-skills-and-training/
Victorian VET funding review issues paper
Minister for Training and Skills, Steve Herbert, announced the release of the independent VET Funding Review’s Issues Paper – the first step in developing a new funding model to keep TAFEs financially secure.
http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/issues-paper-first-step-to-stronger-training-system
Training package implementation workshops
The Community Services & Health Industry Skills Council (CS&HISC) is running a series of professional development workshops in August and September 2015 to assist stakeholders to implement the new CHC and HLT Training Packages.
http://www.cshisc.com.au/develop/industry-qualifications-training-packages/national-training-packages-implementation-workshops/
Australian Training Awards
Registrations are now open for the Australian Training Awards event to be held in Hobart on Thursday, 19 November 2015.
http://www.australiantrainingawards.gov.au/event
Recent VET publications
Government-funded students and courses, 2014 – final
The number of people enrolled in government-funded training nationally declined to 1.79 million last year compared with the previous year, returning to a level similar to 2010. Government-funded enrolments at TAFE and other government providers and community education providers declined 8.8% and 12.2% respectively, but increased 8.4% at other registered training providers.
http://www.ncver.edu.au/wps/portal/vetdataportal/restricted/publicationContent/
Refereed papers from the 23rd NCVER ‘No Frills’ conference
A select few speakers at the NCVER conference were offered the opportunity to have their papers peer-reviewed, and these nine refereed papers have been compiled into a book of conference proceedings. The papers span a broad range of topics, and include pathways and student mobility between VET and higher education, student aspirations, access to education and training, and issues involved with VET reform.
http://www.ncver.edu.au/wps/portal/vetdataportal/restricted/publicationContent
Vocations: the link between post-compulsory education and the labour market
The NCVER has published summaries for different stakeholder groups highlighting the main findings arising from this 3-year research program.
http://www.ncver.edu.au/wps/portal/vetdataportal/restricted/publicationContent
Building the capabilities of the travel, tourism and hospitality workforce
This paper identifies issues to be considered in ensuring the education and training system can respond to emerging skills demand in the travel, tourism and hospitality industry.
http://www.ncver.edu.au/wps/portal/vetdataportal/restricted/publicationContent
Mitchell Institute report
Feasibility and design of a tertiary education entitlement in Australia. In this Mitchell Institute publication, two of the key architects of the original HECS, Dr Tim Higgins and Professor Bruce Chapman, have produced a new report that argues for significant reform to the income contingent loan scheme that would extend it to more VET students while making it affordable.
http://www.mitchellinstitute.org.au/reports/feasibility-and-design-of-a-tertiary-education-entitlement-in-australia/
Other News of Interest
Victorian Government targeting ‘dodgy’ training providers
Skills minister Steve Herbert said that since November 2014, the government has had to restore funding eligibility for more than 10,000 students who gained inadequate qualifications. The Government will spend $9 million on initiatives to crack down on poor practices with a priority on providers who are doing short course delivery.
http://the-scan.com/2015/06/29/vic-to-blitz-dodgy-vet-providers/
Australia and China strengthen quality assurance of training
Australia and China have signed a memorandum of understanding to strengthen collaboration on quality assurance for vocational education and training.
https://ministers.education.gov.au/birmingham/australia-and-china-strengthen-quality-assurance-training
Industry Skills Fund Skills Adviser Network
Assistant Minister for Education and Training, Senator Simon Birmingham, has announced the six organisations that will make up the new Industry Skills Fund Skills Adviser Network. An investment of $43 million over the next three years will provide intensive support to businesses that are looking to grow and develop their workforce.
https://ministers.education.gov.au/birmingham/isf-skills-adviser-network-announced
MySkills update
Assistant Minister for Education and Training, Senator Simon Birmingham, has announced the latest round of enhancements to the MySkills website. New features allow students to search and compare VET courses and training providers, with more information including student satisfaction and employment outcomes by course.
https://ministers.education.gov.au/birmingham/myskills-update-helps-inform-vet-consumers-0
The news articles presented in this edition of VET News have been researched and prepared by Anne Maree Newbery.
Copyright © 2014 Newbery Consulting
Audit Tool – Standards for RTOs 2015
Hi There,
I hope you are all well. We are please today to make available to the VET sector our revised audit tool which has been created to align with the Standards for Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) 2015. This audit tool replaces previous versions from Newbery Consulting which are in circulation that relate to now superseded RTO Standards.
This audit tool is the result of development and review over the past 4 months by lead consultants within Newbery Consulting. The criteria we have provided within each standard and clause go directly to the core of evaluating compliance and are presented in plain language. Where relevant, clauses have been combined within the tool to aid in their review and to assist RTOs to make sense of the standards which are so fragmented. Additional criteria have also been added which Newbery Consulting consider to be important in any internal audit and particularly when preparing for a regulatory audit.
This is the first of a number of products Newbery Consulting will release to the sector which will assist RTOs to monitor their compliance and maximise quality outcomes for their students. The release of these products to the sector directly aligns with our mission to:
Support the Australian VET sector by providing highly informed and innovative products and services that strengthen our client’s capabilities and quality systems and result in optimal outcomes for their students.
Notes about this audit tool:
- This audit tool has been developed by Newbery Consulting and made available as a free download in support of the VET Sector (because that’s what we do).
- We have produced this audit tool to provide RTOs a useful tool that can be customised and which provides audit criteria which can be easily interpreted and go to the core of each standard.
- You are encouraged to customise this audit tool, we only request that you leave the “© Newbery Consulting – 2015” notice in the footer of the document as a recognition of the original work.
- This audit tool has deliberately omitted specific clauses that do not relate to most RTOs or which are not yet applicable. If you are a private RTO that does not deliver TAE qualifications or utilise trainers / assessors under supervision, then this tool is perfect for you. We will add other clauses as needed.
- Newbery Consulting recommends that this tool be used to conduct internal compliance audits with the Standards for Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) 2015 and only by a person who is a qualified auditor and experienced in VET Quality Framework compliance.
- Newbery Consulting does not accept any liability in connection with the use of this audit tool.
- This audit tool should be used in conjunction with the actual Standards for Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) 2015
- Feedback is always welcome. Please send to enquiries@newberyconsulting.com.au
Download here: Audit_Tool_Newbery_Consulting_21-07-2015
Good Training,
Joe Newbery
Published: 21st July 2015
Copyright © Newbery Consulting 2015. All rights reserved.