Current review of TAFE system.

[Trevor 57]

I said already I am happy for constructive criticism, and of course you will appreciate that there is nothing I can do

However there are some on here that have 'mates of mates' who. . . . . . . . . and that is just unsubstantiated rubbish and should be taken elsewhere

Reading your statement I read 'credit transfer' not 'RPL', if it was the same Unit of Competence then they MUST by law accept it, no choice. If you received the original Unit from the same TAFE then it should be on their system. Our system self-populates if a person already has a Unit of Competence with us, we can't over-write it, and they are not charged for it

RPL is a whole different process however

[Rallye Sport]

Originally Posted by Trevor 57

I said already I am happy for constructive criticism, and of course you will appreciate that there is nothing I can do

However there are some on here that have 'mates of mates' who. . . . . . . . . and that is just unsubstantiated rubbish and should be taken elsewhere

Reading your statement I read 'credit transfer' not 'RPL', if it was the same Unit of Competence then they MUST by law accept it, no choice. If you received the original Unit from the same TAFE then it should be on their system. Our system self-populates if a person already has a Unit of Competence with us, we can't over-write it, and they are not charged for it

RPL is a whole different process however

Cheers, honestly, thats the most info anyone has been able to give me on the matter.
Its on my record twice now so something has gone wrong at some point, not sure if its worth chasing up but it has left me with a sour taste.

[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

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by AlanD

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

no truer words spoken - thanks for your contribution

[Trevor 57]

I can't let the couple of comments about 'can't do, so they teach' go

Firstly, the pressure on RTO's to have qualified experienced trades teachers is enormous, the days of having people not up to scratch are long gone. Trainers now MUST by law keep up their core skills and knowledge up to date and are actually audited by the Federal governing body ASQA

Back in the day it was very much frowned upon if you did work outside of RTO hours, now it is encouraged as it is proof you are maintaining your skills and knowledge

Also, I know most of the tradies who have joined TAFE are ex-small business owners who got sick of the grief around running a small business. Some are sick of being on the tools all the time so are looking for a change

The money is certainly not the deal breaker, the vast majority would earn bucket loads more on the tools

For a lot it comes down to a 'life-style' choice for most - steady hours, not crawling around filth dirty on the tools

Maybe that some of the baggers just can't teach, might be good tradies but just don't have the skills to teach, so they get on some random forum and bag out those who do

[John 13]

From my own personal experience within the TAFE- apprentice on the job training realms (majority of my working life) I agree with most of what the other contributors have written. Interesting to read from AlanD re. stratifying the trade qualification. If I got it correct, this is the theory that I believe should replace the one size fits all apprenticeship system.
However my own experience with competency based training and assessment was like a breath of fresh air. If nothing else it gave the opportunity for TAFE- employer consultation and for long term lecturers to reassess their worn out presentations. I realize that there was significant opposition which often resulted in no change except for more clerical work for lecturers, SHAME!

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by John 13

However my own experience with competency based training and assessment was like a breath of fresh air. If nothing else it gave the opportunity for TAFE- employer consultation and for long term lecturers to reassess their worn out presentations. I realize that there was significant opposition which often resulted in no change except for more clerical work for lecturers, SHAME!

A lot of the 'old' trade teachers got out of the system coz they just couldn't cope with the fact that the customers were dictating the terms not them


As a side note, a couple of observations:

• This is a National forum, but the TAFE's are not, and as can be seen a generalisation just does not work - all State's TAFE systems are different
  
• The TAFE/RTO ASQA processes of today just CANNOT be compared to the TAFE/RTO processes of years long gone
  
• If people are going to comment / criticise, they need to consider those 2 very important points
  
• and yes there is still a lot of very passionate TAFE trainers out there with a passion to deliver the best possible training that we can in a system that is not always perfect (training packages for example)

[Work Horse]

I believe everyone agrees we need a system to educate people that do not go to university.

What is needed to get back our world class TAFE system?

It is too simple to say more money, it is unrealistic to say throw out the current system altogether.

My limited experience leave me wondering;

I lived in the UK for many years in the 1980s/90s. Any Australian or New Zealand educated trade person walked straight into a job ahead of locally trained trade’s people. Antipodeans where respected world wide as properly trained.

What happened?

I did a TAFE course at night in the 90's to get the piece of paper. I was pleasantly surprised how much I learned, particularly encouraged by; passionate lectures that knew their stuff. Burnely, where I studied horticulture was respected as the best horticultural collage in the southern hemisphere. My Advanced Cert in Hort is only recognised in Victoria.

How do TAFE providers produce; the best curriculum that for fills the requirements of the local employers, keeps students engaged and finishes with a nationally recognised qualification?

My brother knows an unnatural amount about turf grass. He worked and studied in the USA after finishing his apprenticeship. He worked for years as the superintendent of a top rated Australian golf course. He quit after a falling out with the committee (who’s worked on golf courses?!) He took a temporary job teaching at the local TAFE. He enjoyed it, the students and administration liked him. He went back to study teaching at TAFE. He became head of his department, responsible for curriculum. After ten years he left, disheartened at the direction TAFE was headed. Government money was being cut from government TAFE and given to private providers. My brother is now the head agronomist for a national turf grass body.

How does TAFE attract and retain the best teachers?

[Sprintey]

Originally Posted by Work Horse

I believe everyone agrees we need a system to educate people that do not go to university.

What is needed to get back our world class TAFE system?

It is too simple to say more money, it is unrealistic to say throw out the current system altogether.

Maybe it's already begun to happen. You will note the military equipment build up, after we lost the auto manufacturers military projects were undertaken including the AWD, Canberras, and now subs and T26 frigates for the Navy. I would think apprentices in these fields will be pretty secure, and will be taught how to make things properly. It was not so long ago we were having learning difficulties putting things like the initial AWD or Collins subs together (talked to one of the initial engineers) - but it's been realised as a national sovereignty imperative to be able to build this stuff at home. From here you develop the lifetime trade technical skills that todays apprentices will be handing down to kids in the 2060s.

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by Sprintey

Maybe it's already begun to happen. You will note the military equipment build up, after we lost the auto manufacturers military projects were undertaken including the AWD, Canberras, and now subs and T26 frigates for the Navy. I would think apprentices in these fields will be pretty secure, and will be taught how to make things properly. It was not so long ago we were having learning difficulties putting things like the initial AWD or Collins subs together (talked to one of the initial engineers) - but it's been realised as a national sovereignty imperative to be able to build this stuff at home. From here you develop the lifetime trade technical skills that todays apprentices will be handing down to kids in the 2060s.

Would it be more cost effective and efficent to have private industy run this for government?

Sorry did that sound sarcastic?

[hayseed]

https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/w...irus-recovery/

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by hayseed

https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/w...irus-recovery/

Make more money from full fee paying imports here on visa scams trying to get PR - well prior to pandemics taking their cash cow away from them.

[Trevor 57]

so, now we are talking Universities?

For TAFE's to get into the foreign market is bloody hard work - CRICOS - https://cricos.education.gov.au/)