The skills or the piece of paper?

There seems to be a popular view that ASQA is holding up the future of TAE qualifications. There is talk of ASQA being accountable for what is likely to be a lack of providers available to deliver the TAE40116 Certificate IV in Training and Assessment post October. I want to challenge this notion.

For 6 years, I worked with an RTO that delivered workplace training. Over my time I was asked about once a month for a price to deliver the Certificate IV in Training and Assessment. For the first year of these requests, I would ask all the key questions to provide a quote:

• How many participants?
• When will the participants be available to train?
• What are their current roles?
• What is the outcome the business seeks from the training and team members post training?
• Etc., etc.

From the answers a detailed quote would be developed and presented to the client. Unfortunately each and every time, the client would reject the proposal. In all cases, we were too expensive! We also required far too much of the employee’s valuable time to complete the required training.

After the first 10 or so attempts, I moved to an alternate response when the request for a quote came in. I simply asked, “are you seeking the skills for your team, or the piece of paper?”

In explaining what this meant to the client, I inevitably found that they required the piece of paper, they ideally would like the skills, but were seldom prepared to invest the time or the funds in order to do so. Where this led was for me to politely refer the client to an alternate provider whose offer more closely aligned with their needs.

Before many jump in with arguments around the construction of the qualification and training package, I accept that it is not ideal and could certainly be improved. However, “it is what it is” and therefore should be delivered to the standards set, not “downgraded” because it is being delivered to non-VET sector participants. Once someone is qualified they are essentially licensed to train and assess, therefore they must be trained properly.

I always remember a young supervisor in the packaging sector expressing disgust that some of his team, who were registered as adult apprentices, were being incorrectly assessed as competent where they were not. He simply stated that the next place they work at will expect a skill level that they don’t have and this would reflect on his business as much as it does the individual.

The trouble with shorter TAE programs, is that they are not preparing the participants to be both competent and confident graduates and practitioners. I am not referring to the obvious non-compliant one weekend courses, but even some of the courses that meet basic compliance assume a lot of the individual in terms of how they will apply their knowledge. The number of RTOs employing “qualified” trainers whose knowledge and skills are substandard is evidence enough that there are still too many offering the qualification, not the required skills.

So, we should all be applauding ASQA’s approach and we should acknowledge where the challenge actually lies. Great RTOs want to know if it is worth being in the market. I know of RTOs who want to deliver the TAE40116 to its fullest, but want to know that their program will not be consistently undercut in time and or in price. They want to know how strong ASQA will be in regulating what happens post registration. They want to know what the median market price and course duration will be. Largely trade apprenticeships have worked in this way, where the differences between the shortest and the longest, and cheapest and most expensive in any given area are not far apart. Meaning those wishing to sell on quality or sell something unique are not trying to do so in a market where the lowest priced provider makes the highest priced seem inconceivable. I guess the difference until now is that a qualified trades person must be competent, skilled and confident in what they do, otherwise they are unemployable in their trade. The difference in the VET sector is we continue to accept those who hold the qualification but whose skills are sub-par. We as a sector accept retraining, upskilling or in extreme cases almost providing an apprenticeship, to take a ‘qualified’ TAE graduate from being substandard to an employable and skilled VET practitioner.

So, what is the solution?

For a start, we need to stop blaming ASQA! We as an industry need to re-establish the credibility of the TAE40116. We need all providers to commit to rigorous and appropriate delivery of the qualifications and make no apology for the need for individuals to invest time and money to achieve the qualification. My personal view, is a rise in median price point to approximately $4,000, with a minimum commitment of 15 days of either face to face or eLearning equivalent. Of course, there will be variations based on group sizes (economies of scale) and special features where the price might be higher. At this median price and with this level of commitment we will see an increase in overall quality of the courses and in turn highly innovative providers return to the TAE market. We will also see outstanding future graduates who have been provided training over an acceptable period of time, to ensure they have the skills and confidence to put great learning into practice and enter the market as competent and confident VET practitioners.