campusreview. com. au
VET & TAFE
by students and the standards actually achieved by students in the course of study are benchmarked against similar accredited courses of study offered by other higher education providers”.
HE STANDARDS EXCEED VET’ s While the VET and HE standards are like oil and water, higher education’ s are superior to VET’ s because they’ re more clear – they use plain English not jargon – and stronger, in that they empower the student. For example, the new VET standards enable the RTO to decide what the best support is for the individual:“ The RTO determines the support needs of individual learners and provides access to the educational and support services necessary for the individual learner to meet the requirements of the training product as specified in training packages or VET-accredited courses.” Just by the bye, if I was Flash Harry, the owner of a profit-based RTO, I would enjoy interpreting this vague standard to my own benefit, thank you very much.
In contrast, the equivalent higher education standard requires organisations to ensure“ students are informed of and have appropriate access to advocacy support, for example in relation to the higher education provider’ s academic and procedural rules”. One wonders whether recent scandals in VET would have arisen if students in some rogue RTOs had been given appropriate access to adequate“ advocacy support”.
The same standard also requires higher education organisations to ensure“ a range of personal support services adequate to meet the needs of the student body, such as counselling, health, welfare, accommodation and career services, [ are ] provided by appropriately qualified personnel”. Unlike the VET regulation, this pointed standard gives the Flash Harry types in VET no wiggle room; they have to provide a detailed set of services.
Another example of how higher education standards are clearer and stronger relates to the concept of students at risk. Higher education providers must have“ effective mechanisms to identify and support students who are at risk of not progressing academically”. That is, the higher education provider is to use mechanisms to stay concerned about the student’ s progress throughout the program of study.
In contrast, the VET standards require RTOs to provide adequate information to the student – say in the form of written documentation – and mostly at the time of enrolment, not throughout the program:“ The RTO must provide learners with information prior to commencement of services including any third-party arrangements affecting the delivery of training and / or assessment. This is to occur regardless of the manner in which the learner has been engaged, and whether the learner was initially engaged by the RTO itself or a third party.
“ The RTO is to provide or make readily available information to the learner that outlines the services the RTO will provide the learner, along with the rights and obligations of the learner and the RTO.”
Fortunately for Flash Harry, one document can cover this early provision of information:“ The RTO may provide information to the learner through one or more documents; for example an enrolment form, policy, employment contract or agreement, induction handbook or documented practice, training plan or training contract.”
The VET standard sounds and looks like a checklist that could be embedded in one of those lengthy, indigestible tick-the-box consumer protection statements you are asked to read each time you book an airline ticket, before you can pay for your ticket. Do you read it? If you were a VET student with literacy issues would you be able to understand it?
VET STANDARDS get more lax In some instances, new VET standards are poorer than the previous versions. This leads to the speculation that perhaps some Flash Harrys had some influence over the wording of the standards. As an example, one of the old standards that was removed from the 2015 set is that students have an opportunity to identify their learning goals and have these goals recorded. Given that many Flash Harrys in VET are not educators, they must be relieved that a term they would struggle to understand, learning goals, was removed from the VET standards.
Similarly, the previous VET standards required that individual student training and assessment plans form part of a written agreement with the student. This requirement does not feature in the 2015 version, again to the relief of Flash Harry.
As a further example, the previous VET standards required the RTO to ensure that the organisation’ s results from national student surveys – such as for student satisfaction and outcomes – are publicly available.“ Who needs national comparisons?” Flash Harry says.“ Just trust me.” The 2015 VET standards meet Harry’ s needs in requiring that“ your organisation provides current and accurate information that enables the learner to make informed decisions about undertaking training with you”.
Unfortunately, Flash Harry is a reality. In ASQA’ s late 2013 report on‘ Marketing and Advertising practices of Australia’ s registered training organisations’, it found numerous Flash Harrys running amok in the VET sector:“ up to 45 per cent of the RTOs were marketing and advertising misleading information”.
One way to eliminate the Flash Harrys is to bundle ASQA together with TEQSA, abandon VET’ s approach to assessment and allow the HE regulator to bring some sophistication to VET standards. Regrettably this won’ t happen for a range of reasons, including the political power wielded in VET by those RTOs marketing and advertising misleading information, and the policymakers and ministerial advisers who either foster these RTOs or are too afraid to disown them. n
Dr John Mitchell is a VET researcher and analyst. Go to: jma. com. au
21