VET & TAFE campusreview. com. au
Next on the hot seat
The Vocation Ltd share price’ s fall will mean some tough questions for governments from powerful stakeholders concerned about regulation and standards.
By John Mitchell
A trigger for the recent dive in the share price of Vocation Ltd was the realisation that both the Victorian and national VET regulators were concerned about the quality of training and assessment some sections of that company offered. In responding this way, shareholders in Vocation showed respect for the VET regulators various governments have established.
Those governments would be wise not to gloat about the performance of their regulators, however, as the ongoing analysis of the Vocation episode will inevitably put government in the hot seat. As a result of the Vocation share slide, state and federal governments will come under increasing scrutiny for how well they have designed and implemented standards for VET providers. Some powerful parties who will now be asking questions about the clarity and precision of VET standards will be the Australian Securities Exchange( ASX), the Australian Securities and Investments Commission( ASIC) and any large investment institutions considering legal action against Vocation.
The queries from ASX, ASIC and others will probably have governments scrambling for places to hide. Questions could include the following: Are VET standards clear about the number of hours of training required for a qualification? What qualifications and experience do trainers need? Is anyone in the training organisation ultimately accountable for the quality of training delivered? How does industry validate the assessment strategies providers use?
When ASX, ASIC, lawyers and others turn the spotlight on the standards for VET providers, they will find that new standards were released in October 2014 and, whilst they are an improvement, they are still imperfect, according to one of VET’ s longstanding leaders in assessment and training, Berwyn Clayton, director of the Work-based Education Research Centre at Victoria University.
Both the previous and new standards leave room for interpretation and this is Clayton’ s major concern. She says“ it was all those areas of interpretation” that encouraged some VET providers to cut corners, for instance in offering programs much shorter in length than others would offer, such as 200 hours instead of 1200 for a diploma-level program.
IS ONE VALIDATOR ENOUGH? Clayton’ s main concerns with the new standards relate to the training and assessment practices of VET providers and practice and a need for providers to be responsive to industry and learner needs and meet the requirements of training packages. Take, for example, the new standard about VET providers implementing a comprehensive plan of systematic validation based on risk.
“ Clearly this standard is going to need considerable guidance and a clear definition of some of those terms,” she says.“ They’ re a bit woolly. What constitutes comprehensive? What constitutes systematic and how is risk to be determined? ASQA( Australian Skills
26