[AlanD]

On reading through the full post list, one of the items that I have not noticed appearing is the matter of audit trail documentation regarding qualifications and competencies.


It goes like this:


When an RTO provides certification for a student in the form of a "shiny" piece of paper the RTO is making a LEGAL declaration that the person has:


1. Gained a body of knowledge as laid down in the curriculum for that qualification, and
2. Demonstrated that the range of practical competancies called for in the curriculum have been demonstrated to an approved lecturer/trainer to a level that is deemed to be at (or above) a stated standard.


The first of these two requirements requires some method of examination and this is usually by means of written responses to a series of standardised questions. That written "paper" is then kept (or ought to be kept) in permanent form by the institution, so that, if questions are asked, referral back to that paper can be made.


Where an RTO has provided such a document then the knowledge and competencies are a given - problem is, many RTOs fudge, because clearing students through competencies is the method by which funding (at least in part) for the RTO is generated.


From an educational point of view, this is the thin edge of a very nasty wedge, because it leads to "falsifying" results to the detriment of the student , the industry and ultimately the community. Unfortunately, politicians are more driven by looking for ways to minimise costs than they are with maintaining or improving standards. Right now we are talking about reskilling/upskilling our workforce. If that is a true need, then past governments have been asleep at the wheel (or on holiday, perhaps?)


Between 1988 and 2001 I had a managerial/academic standards role in a large TAFE College. Frequently I was faced with documentation from "private" RTOs showing student competancies that clearly were not within the grasp of the holder of the paperwork. Usually this was evidenced by inability to demonstrate an earlier competancy that was required to achieve competancy in a more avanced module. On occasion I chased back down the "audit" trail to find that the person who had signed off on the competancy at the RTO was engaged, at the time, on a contract basis and was no longer on their staff! On another I asked to view the equipment suite necessary for determining a competancy that was certified to discover that the RTO did not own one of the items required!


Credit transfer is whole different can of worms. This is especially true if the credit being claimed is sourced from a different country, as it frequently was. Often provided in a foreign language and almost always without any indication of the curriculum and syllabus information. In such a case it was often faster to provide the requester with our curriculum documentation, get from them a statement about which of the modules they felt they had competancy in, and then request them to demonstrate this/these competancies by written or practical test. In the interests of speed most claiments went down this track - in some instances I resorted to oral examination - it is faster.


Recognition of prior learning (RPL). Another can of (different) worms. I have no problem with the concept. Learning on the basis of experience is the method that has been used since, as a species, we started painting on cave walls. The "be shown then do" principle. But if you want the "shiny" bit of paper then it is necessary to "prove" that what you claim is fact and it has to be attested by an "authorised" person. Your trades-person will not do - unless they have been approved by the appropriate authority to assess competancies. It goes back to that word "LEGAL" in line 3. When a job isn't done properly, for whatever reason, and loss and/or damage occurs (sometimes physical injury) the RTO might be called to give evidence - in this instance your records keeping processes better be be on the ball and fast to access.


Have TAFE standards slipped? I can make no comment across the last couple of decades, but in the previous 25 years I saw them change for the worse and the principal culprit was competancy based learning, in my view. Another factor was industry pressure to avoid "off the job training" to maximise the on job time of apprentices. Frequent alterations to curriculum/syllabus for no good purpose was another factor. Frequently the apprentice employer does not have a need for the full range of competancies that a qualification demonstrates, but any attempt to "stratify" an existing trade qualification into basic, intermediate and advanced levels was met with absolute opposition by industry - How do I know? Because, without success, I tried.


The final comment is: All a qualification does is state that on a given date the holder had attained the knowledge and competencies that the certificate identifies at some time previously. What happens after that date is anybodys' guess. Unused skills, without continuous application, atrophy, and knowledge that is unused is often forgotten



Cheers