BASELINE NEWS
Unduly Short Training: Current Issues and Prospective Management
One of the most vital aspects of any workforce is it’s training—the quality, consistency, and regulation of such determining, to a large degree, the efficacy of that workforce. Effective training results in workers who are confident, versatile, and more employable. However, concerns have been raised that a significant portion of VET training in Australia has been ‘unduly short’, per a recent national strategic review by the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA).
Per this review, ‘research, stakeholder reports, and a number of ASQA’s previous strategic industry reviews show that concern about unduly short training is widespread and longstanding.’
The review identified four major concerns as reasons for the ongoing problem of unduly short training. First, the regulations governing the duration of courses is overly complicated and difficult to comprehend. Second, specifications of duration are wanting in Australian, compared to other systems internationally. Third, several Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) were found to be advertising multiple courses of a relatively short duration. Finally, it was determined that consumers of training systems in Australia are unable to properly effect market response, as there exists insufficient information for them to make informed choices.
Major Concern: ONE
Under the current system, the rate at which a trainee is deemed to progress depends upon their competence, not the duration of their training. Competency-based training is a fundamental aspect of the Australian Vocational education and training (VET) system. While this allows RTOs to tailor their training to the specific needs and skills of their students, it is often difficult to effectively regulate.
According to the ASQA strategic review, ‘the system is open to inconsistent interpretations about the amount of training required’. Unsupervised learning is incorporated into many qualifications, and is not designated as separate. Furthermore, there is no official length that training packages must fulfil, and there is a lot of faith placed in the ability of RTOs to holistically determine the volume of training required, under any set of circumstances.
On the thin end, this allows certain training facilities to justify the short duration of the courses they offer by arguing that most of the course is ‘self-directed’. There are also apparent difficulties in the way training is regulated across training packages and VET accredited courses; the former requiring no specific duration; the latter requiring hours of training. Training packages constitute the vast majority of VET enrolments, and, having no clear duration requirement, are severely at risk of offering unduly short training.
Major Concern: TWO
It was found that countries outside Australia are more specific in defining the duration of training programmes. Most VET systems allocate requisite training durations to each specific qualification. The approaches made internationally to the problems of brief training are more uniform, tailored to the specific course or method of training, and engage with regulation with greater specificity. According to ASQA, even systems based on competence, or self-directed training programmes, benefit from having some degree of fixed duration.
Major Concern: THREE
The ASQA review also assessed RTOs that advertised the duration of the courses they offer. The information gathered pertains to nearly 12,000 advertisements across various qualification types and levels. Analysis of this data revealed some serious shortcomings with regard to training duration.
More than 25% of courses advertised were for less duration than that advised, and almost 8% were advertised at less than half the ideal duration. While the review acknowledged that it ‘does not contend that all of the courses with an advertised duration below the minimum of the AQF volume of learning range are unduly short or of poor quality’, it should be noted that the data presents some likely risks and impacts.
Aside from students, participants, and trainees receiving less in the way of competency, or, once accredited, being thrust into workplaces and situations for which they are unprepared, unduly short training from the ground up will compound the damage done. On top of this, many courses are routinely under-duration. The larger the number of students those courses service, the greater the impact of unduly short training.
Major Concern: FOUR
Across the board, there’s terrific inconsistency in how course duration is advertised. Similarly, there is a great deal of overlap among courses that are included in training packages. These factors conspire to confuse prospective students, and their employers. These factors have contributed to a significant loss to the training market, in the way of demand, quality control, and competition.
It is increasingly difficult to compare providers and courses, and the relevant information is either inconsistent or unavailable. As a result, customers are unable to properly discriminate between providers, and unable to make the best choices.
A Prospective Solution
The conclusion reached by the ASQA strategic review is that ‘quality of VET outcomes would be improved by a sensible and proportionate change to the VET architecture’. The review moves to set consistent definitions, and to make such requirements as course duration training-specific.
The chief issue is more a matter of quality than quantity. An RTO dedicated to producing high quality, industry standard training will invariably assess the competence of its participants, and grade them or teach them accordingly. Furthermore, such an organisation shouldn’t have to moderate the duration of their courses to compete in a VET system that is, as evidenced, prone to providing unduly short training.
Ultimately, any strategy devised to remedy this problem in Australia will depend upon enforcing consistency, increases in regulation, and tailoring these requirements to specific skills, courses, and systems.
This piece was drawn from a review undertaken by ASQA, the body of which can be accessed below:
Concerns have been raised that a significant portion of VET training in Australia has been ‘unduly short’, per a recent national strategic review by the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA).
