“You’re better off just doing the course…”-Can we do RPL assessments better?

I think we need to and we can do RPL assessment better. What follows is some context and some suggestions.

Ten years ago I was sponsored by an RTO to design and deliver an RPL assessment program for a specific Industry cohort (professional contemporary musicians). This was a no-brainer for me; while the sector doesn’t fit the traditional industry stereotype the selected candidates could all boast very public accolades as evidence of their capability. Also, at the time I was appalled by some of the RTO teaching staff who had nowhere near the vocational capability of some of their students. The program was successful in that it managed to recognise a 100 genuine professional musicians. But it ultimately collapsed under the sheer weight of largely irrelevant compliance documentation (prescribed by the quality auditor). What went wrong here was that the tasks required to satisfy the RPL assessment actually required skills and knowledge well outside the competencies being assessed. Further, the “Quality” Auditor, because of their own focus, was unable to recognise genuine quality evidence of competence.

Fast forward 10 years and I have the same issues with TAE. Recently I had a Cert IV TAE candidate in my class who had been caught up in an ASQA recall of certifications. It wasn’t his fault, he had been “tarred with the same brush” of some from an RTO who had been certificated inappropriately. He was a delight in the classroom; he had 20 years of accredited training under his belt and he was willing to share this with the rest of the class. Of course he blitzed the program, but the point is he shouldn’t have been there. He was told by the TAFE in question that “Because of our integrated assessment approach it is too hard for you to do RPL, you are better off just doing the course”.

This is wrong – particularly as it cost the taxpayer $2000 to train this guy in things he could already do. How many candidates are there like this -10,000 a year? 50000? That’s at least 20M of wasted dollars. Not to mention the unnecessary hardship for the candidate in doing an unnecessary course and being delayed in getting a job.

When it comes to Learning & Assessment programs I’m a big fan of integrated training and holistic assessment (for all the accepted reasons around authenticity). But RTOs should not match their RPL assessment protocols to their Learning and Assessment programs.

Of course RPL assessment practice falls within the domain of integrated assessment; typically items of evidence will support multiple competencies. But, at least in my experience, the combined portfolio leaves a “gap” and that is where RTOs are typically unable or unwilling to support the candidate. I often get L&A candidates who present because their RPL portfolio can (but can only) support an average of 75% of the evidence requirements across the 10 UoCs of Cert IV TAE. Their RTOs tell them “We can’t award any units, you should attend the course”.

The 25% remainder is typically related to current knowledge and compliant performance evidence. In my opinion, this gap can and should be fulfilled by self-study and out-of-class practicum. But, commercially this isn’t viable.

What I’m suggesting is not “Easy RPL”. But right now we have an inefficient system that compels “over-training”. If one or more RTOs could accommodate specific modular gap training in their RPL protocols this could save the taxpayer and individuals in the 100s of millions of dollars. In Victoria, the DET could benefit the community by allocating some of their Skills Australia funding to specialist “Gap Training” organisations.