Many trainers, assessors and RTO managers will already know about some of the proposed changes that ASQA wants to introduce to improve the quality of assessment. As they state:
“In November 2015 Skills Ministers agreed to explore reform options to support the following principles:
- Graduates have the required competencies for the job role and there is consistency across RTOs in the quality of assessment.
- Trainers and assessors have the capability to assess appropriately.
- Assessment meets the standard set by industry.
- The regulator has the capacity to effectively regulate assessment practices and outcomes and take appropriate action.”
Within those four statements is the ongoing critical error which has resulted in so much red tape, confusion and inadequate training and assessment. There is no RTO in Australia that can accurately assess any participant to be competent! Not, based on our current, overly complex, definition of competency. Also in our defense not in the timeframes that are commercial viable for any program. It honestly doesn’t happen and the majority of sensible, experienced trainers and assessors know this. It has become such a thick smoke screen we can’t see beyond it. Examine the standard below:
For a learner to be assessed as competent, your RTO must ensure the learner demonstrates their:
- ability to perform relevant tasks in a variety of workplace situations, or accurately simulated workplace situations
- understanding of what they are doing, and why, when performing tasks
- ability to integrate performance with understanding, to show they are able to adapt to different contexts and environments.
A learner must:
- be assessed against all of the tasks identified in the elements of the unit or module
- demonstrate they are capable of performing these tasks to an acceptable level.
Through the above process, the learner must demonstrate they hold all of the required skills and knowledge, as specified in the unit or module assessment requirements.
How?? Let me make it clear I am using ASQA audited, RTO validated, excellent assessments. But when I check the definition above I know in my professional conscience that I am not assessing that level of competency.
Even in the traditional trade areas, where I believe competency as a term still has some relevance, the above can not be achieved. I also do not believe that is what industry wants. Has anyone really talked to industry via managers and leaders? My experience from being in industry was that I wanted capable people who were keen to learn more and gain experience as we guided them from the learning phase to the working phase. We spent considerable time taking the effective knowledge and skills that the participants were provided with from a training provider and honed that into a competent, experienced worker who fitted our workplace and culture. I didn’t expect a training provider to do that.
I was recently asked to write a RCC guide for the Diploma of Leadership and Management and while doing this I was struck by how impossible it would be for any person to claim recognition based on the extensive criteria, knowledge and performance requirements. It then occurred to me that it would be equally impossible to train someone in every aspect of the qualification and then through some miracle assess them as competent (by definition). Examine the core unit in this course: Develop and use emotional intelligence BSBLDR501, which I think is an important unit of study, and try to determine how an assessor at the end of that unit will know (conclusively) if a participant is competent. At best it will be a subjective call based on observation and the answers to self reflective questions.
I train people in many qualifications. One of those is project management. After a ten week program (which by the way has passed audit) and the completion of a range of assessment tasks, do I believe that the participants are competent (by definition) in project management. Of course not. I know that they are ready to enter into project management and gain valuable experience. I am satisfied that I have done a good job. I know that they are satisfied from the feedback and most admit that they now need to get some experience. When do they achieve competency in project management? Years later, I would suspect. I have been project managing for over twenty years and I am still learning.
So what is the answer?
Before I launch into the approach that must be taken regarding competency let’s look at what Universities do. I had a quick scan through a range of university websites and didn’t find one university who stated that they produced competent graduates. The tended to state their goals as the following (UTS website):
UTS courses are also renowned for their practice-based approach. We ensure that you graduate with as much hands-on experience as possible, and exposure to cutting-edge technology, so you develop knowledge and skills valued by employers.
Ok, so a little vague but I like this.
This is what Macquarie University states (Macquarie Uni website):
What that means for you is that at every point along your journey with us, you’ll be encouraged to experiment and question the norm. And when you’re given the freedom to be bold and unconstrained, extraordinary new ideas take shape.
Macquarie is a hub where people from all backgrounds become the best version of themselves. A training ground for new generations, we’ll empower you to defy convention, to break down divisions, to grow into a well-rounded world citizen and community leader.
I don’t see anything about competent there, in fact the opposite. They want you to challenge the standards. All universities also state the importance of meeting industries requirements but how can this be the case if they offer a very different learning and assessment process? Yes, some of you are going to think, but they offer degrees and professions but isn’t that where VET has ventured. My Bachelor of Education was relatively straight forward compared to the Certificate Iv in Training and Assessment. My degree took more time and had much more practical teaching experience but at the end of the process I was far from competent. It took years of practice and further learning before I considered myself a competent professional.
My point is the term competency and the definition in the VET sector needs to change. It’s old, tired and no longer useful. I would prefer a term like capable. After participating in a sound learning program (which has key learning areas) and completing a valid comprehensive assessment the participant is deemed to be capable to enter the workforce and participate in ongoing learning and development (EXPERIENCE). Through professional bodies and associations they can then achieve professional competence after some designated timeframe (say 1 to 2 years, by compiling a portfolio or experiences).
By dropping the term competency (and the baggage that comes with it) you will have no more debates about what is competent or not, whether assessors are capable of assessing or not, whether industry is happy or not with the outcome and then we can get on with the job of equipping people with the ability to get into a career or change a career. The difference here is that no-one is expecting them to be fully competent in a career before they even have a job or experienced any part of the job. Why would you expect a person to be a competent manager after completing a leadership program before they have even been in a leadership role? It just doesn’t make sense.
My guess is that most people reading this will say but how do you know if the assessment that every RTO conducts is valid and comprehensive without the competency structure and criteria. Easy! We all use the same assessments which have been developed by the relevant Industry Skills Councils. Of course now critics will say, ‘But that doesn’t allow for flexibility’. Yes, it does. I have worked for many RTO’s and for the same course the assessment has essential been the same in very RTO with the vast majority of them using terms like ‘In your workplace document…..’. Please don’t kid yourself that assessments are tailored for particular participants. That does happen when it is one organisation attending the program but even then it is rare.
Ok, so if you are following me then, once we have centrally set assessments RTO’s can get on with the job of providing the best training possible so that a participant can pass the assessment and acquire the knowledge, skills and practical experience that will allow them to succeed in their career choice. If I am a student and I already know what the assessment is because i can download it then I am going to be looking for the RTO that provides the best learning experience not the RTO that provides the easiest route to the qualification. That will create some real competition. ASQA will have a lot of spare time on its hands and they can get on with the job of auditing training material, sessions plans, content, activities and delivery etc which we have completely neglected in this ridiculous pursuit of competence.
Back to the four statements:
“In November 2015 Skills Ministers agreed to explore reform options to support the following principles:
- Graduates have the required competencies for the job role and there is consistency across RTOs in the quality of assessment.(No – ISC create assessments and graduates are capable and over time workplace competent)
- Trainers and assessors have the capability to assess appropriately. (I will discuss this aspect in another post but for now it isn’t as critical if we change competency to capable)
- Assessment meets the standard set by industry. (We need to re-discover what this is but it isn’t a piece of useless paper)
- The regulator has the capacity to effectively regulate assessment practices and outcomes and take appropriate action. (Yes, they need to check that all RTO’s are using the same assessment, but how easy would this be to do rather than checking every single assessment in Australia)
Leave a Reply