The quality of the VET system is being put at risk by a myriad of short courses of varying lengths being offered by training providers, according to the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA), the national VET regulator.
ASQA has found that more than a quarter of some 11,000 courses advertised on websites had durations below the minimum of the Australian Quality Framework (AQF).
ASQA Chief Commissioner Mark Paterson said ASQA initiated the strategic review in response to concerns raised through its regulatory findings and previous strategic reviews that unduly short training prevented some learners from gaining the skills and competencies required to be certified as competent from VET courses.
“ASQA’s strategic reviews of training for the aged and community care, early childhood education and care; construction and security industries identified unduly short courses as being a key risk in these industries as well as the wider VET sector,” Mr Paterson said.
“The latest review found that in competency-based training systems there are still circumstances in which mandating duration is seen to be necessary as one means of regulating quality where there is a risk of unduly short training.
“It also found that the regulation of duration in VET was complex and confusing and the requirements are different across the two different types of nationally recognised training products, and that there was insufficient consistently-presented and comparable information available to enable VET consumers to make informed choices between RTOs.”
The report, A Review of Issues Relating to Unduly Short Training (PDF document of 171 pages) says the system is characterised by "a myriad of different and somewhat ad hoc duration requirements".
Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills, Karen Andrews, has welcomed the release of the findings of ASQA’s national strategic review of issues relating to unduly short training.
Minister Andrews said unduly short courses were, in many cases, resulting in learners not gaining the competencies specified in the training packages for certain industries.
“This has the potential to lead to a loss of confidence in VET and long term costs to industry, individuals, the community and governments,” Minister Andrews said.
Community Colleges Australia CEO, Dr Don Perlgut, echoed Minister Andrews’ comments: “CCA is pleased that ASQA has invested the time and resources into this research. The community VET providers have a long-term commitment to VET quality, and we are pleased that this matter has been raised. CCA welcomes ASQA’s emphasis on quality and ensuring that the duration of VET courses meets legal and accreditation requirements as well as learner needs,” Dr Perlgut said.
The Report’s key findings are:
- Research, stakeholder reports and a number of ASQA’s previous strategic industry reviews show that concern about unduly short training is widespread and longstanding.
- Regulation of duration in VET is complex and confusing, and includes different requirements for duration for the two different types of nationally recognised training products.
- Other countries provide greater specification of duration, demonstrating that in competency-based training systems there are still circumstances in which mandating duration is considered a necessary means of regulating quality.
- There is significant risk that in many cases learners are not gaining the competencies specified in VET qualifications, leading to loss of confidence in vocational education and training as well as long-term costs to industry, individuals, the community and governments.
- More than a quarter of the 11,677 advertisements reviewed on ASQA-regulated RTOs’ websites that advertised duration for training package qualifications have a course duration below the minimum of the Australian Quality Framework (AQF) volume of learning range.
- Many providers offer good-quality training; however, these providers are facing increased pressure to either reduce quality or leave the market—because they cannot compete with providers offering unduly short and inadequate training programs.
- The long-term sustainability of the VET system is at risk unless the issue of unduly short training is definitively addressed.
- There is insufficient consistently presented and comparable information available to enable VET consumers to make informed choices between RTOs.
- Sensible and proportionate change to the VET regulatory framework will enable effective regulation of the amount of duration, provide industry with a lead role in addressing the risks of poor-quality training (by specifying their requirements), and empower industry and prospective learners with the information to more readily compare training providers and their offerings.
