The TAE Training Package is currently under review. And this includes the development of one or more qualifications to replace the TAE40116 Certificate IV in Training and Assessment qualification. This is the second of two articles about what may replace the TAE40116 qualification.

The first article took a historical look at the qualification packaging rules that have been used to develop training and assessment skills. In this article, I will look into my crystal ball and see what the future qualification packaging rules may look like.

At recent presentations about the TAE Review, it has be said that the average number of units of Certificate IV qualifications is 14. And because of this a future replacement for the TAE40116 Certificate IV in Training and Assessment qualification may require a total of 14 units.

• If there is going to be 14 units, how many units will be core and how many units will be electives?
• What will the core units be? And what will be the available elective units?

How many qualifications will replace the TAE40116 qualification?

The current TAE40116 qualification covers the skills to work as a trainer and assessor in the VET sector. A qualification for this purpose will still be required. Some people are wanting a qualification for trainers and assessors who do not work in the VET sector. This raises the question, “can one qualification cater for two different contexts or are two different qualifications required?”

One qualification

There are some qualifications that are used for different purposes or contexts. For example, the CHC33015 Certificate III in Individual Support qualification. This qualification can be used for workers in the aged care sector or workers in the disability sector. Different elective units must be selected for people working in the different sectors. And depending on the ‘specialisation’, the qualification is issued as:

• CHC33015 Certificate III in Individual Support (Ageing)
• CHC33015 Certificate III in Individual Support (Disability)

Although the qualification code and title are the same, a person with the CHC33015 Certificate III in Individual Support (Disability) would not be eligible to work in the aged care sector, and visa versa.

Will one qualification replace the TAE40116 qualification? If one qualification replaces the TAE40116 qualification, will it have elective units for people who want to work in VET and different elective units for people who do not want to work in VET. The qualification issued would have the same code and title but ‘specialisation’ in brackets. For example:

• TAE40122 Certificate IV in Training and Assessment (VET)
• TAE40122 Certificate IV in Training and Assessment (Non-VET)

More than one qualification

Another approach could be to develop two qualifications. One qualification for people who want to work in VET and a different qualification for people who do not want to work in VET. For example:

• TAE40122 Certificate IV in Training and Assessment
• TAE40222 Certificate IV in Workplace Training

Confusion at the point of enrolment

It will not matter if there is one qualification with ‘specialisations’ or more than one qualification to replace the TAE40116 qualification. There would be two different qualification outcomes issued based on different units of competency being attained. Good luck to RTO staff trying to explain which qualification or elective units a person should do at the point of enrolment. I would estimate that 90% of people enrolling into the TAE40116 qualification do not really know what they will be learning (not to any great detail). They have limited or no idea about different types of RTOs. And for most, the concept of working in a highly-regulated competency-based training and assessment system is unknown.

If a person gets the qualification that allows them to work in VET, then they could get a job as a trainer outside of the VET system. But if a person gets the qualification for working as a trainer outside of the VET system they would not be employable by an RTO unless they did some more training (gap training). How will this person feel when they are told that they would have to pay more money to do more training?

Disappointment and anger

Let’s say that a person has attained a qualification designed for a non-VET trainer. And let’s say this qualified person applies for a job as a VET trainer and assessor. They would be rejected. How will they feel? They will probably feel disappointed. Some may feel angry.

I think most people given a choice would do the qualification that keeps their future employment options open. This raises the question, “why create two qualification pathways or outcomes?”

Some people would answer this question by saying that the TAE40116 qualification is not fit for purpose. It has been designed for trainers and assessors to gain the skills to work in the VET sector. That is true, and that is why the TAE40116 qualification fits the purpose that it was designed for. The TAE Training Package has skill sets and units that could be used to fit other purposes but people are fixated on getting a qualification. This qualification would be designed for non-VET trainers and I would predict the enrolment numbers would be low. How many people would want to spend their money on getting an inferior qualification or a qualification that limits their employability as a trainer?

What is the difference between working in VET and not working in VET?

Working in VET sector

The following are the essential competencies required by trainers and assessors working in the VET sector:

• Trainers need to plan, organise and deliver group based learning
• Assessors need to plan, organise and conduct assessment
• Trainers and assessors working for an RTO are asked to participate at assessment validation meetings
• Trainer and assessors working for an RTO are asked to develop simple training and assessment resources
• Trainers and assessors need to know how to address LLN skills
• Trainers and assessors need to know how training packages and accredited courses are used as the foundations for delivering competency-based training and assessment services.

Potential change to the TAE40116 qualification include:

• Removal the TAEASS502 Design and develop assessment tools unit (as long as ASQA agrees and the Standards for RTOs Schedule 1 is changed)
• Implementation of TAEDEL405 Plan, organise and facilitate e-learning and TAEASS404 Conduct e-assessment of competence units (currently these units are being developed by the Education IRC).

Not working in VET sector

The following are the essential competencies required by trainers not working in the VET sector:

• Trainers need to plan, organise and deliver group based learning
• Trainers may need to develop simple training and assessment resources.

Some people have said that trainers working outside the VET sector need the following competencies:

• Conduct a training needs analysis (TNA)
• Evaluate training programs.

The competencies to be a non-VET trainer seem to be far less that what is needed to be a VET trainer and assessor. This raises the question, “do non-VET trainers need for a full qualification?”

14 units of competency

At recent presentations about the TAE Review, it has be said that the average number of units of Certificate IV qualifications is 14. And because of this a future replacement for the TAE40116 Certificate IV in Training and Assessment qualification may require a total of 14 units.

What could the qualification packaging rules look like?

The following is my fanciful creation of two qualification packaging rules.

The following compares a qualification for VET trainers and assessors and a qualification for a non-VET trainers using the qualification packaging rules that I have created.

Future gap training

The above table shows a significant gap between the two qualification outcomes. A person with the non-VET qualification would need to do a whopping six additional units to become eligible to work in the VET sector. This may require an additional 2 to 4 months of study to complete (and additional course fees).

Future complaints

Also, the above table shows that a replacement for the TAE40116 qualification for people seeking employment in the VET sector may be similar to what we already have got.

I can already hear people complaining:

• It is too difficult for people to do the ‘Assessment (TAEASS) units’
• The inclusion of particular units, like the TAEDES505 unit, is unnecessary because most trainers and assessors don’t do this
• The inclusion of ‘AQF level 5’ units are an issue, because people find them difficult to do (or RTOs find them too difficult to implement)
• The qualification is too practical (it needs more theory, it needs to be more academic, it needs more knowledge content about things like pedagogy)
• There is duplication of content between the ‘e-units’ and the ‘non-e-units’.

I have written other articles showing how unnecessary it is for the development of two new ‘e-units’:

• Do we need a new e-learning unit of competency?
• Do we need a new e-assessment unit of competency?
• E-assessment and E-learning: the development of two TAE units that we don’t need

And it is possible that some people will still complain that the replacement qualification is not fit for purpose (although there are alterative ‘training products’ available that would be fit for purpose).

In conclusion

Is 14 the right number of units for the replacement for the TAE40116 qualification? Probably not. I addressed this in my first article. In this article, I have shown what a qualification with 14 units may look like.

The needs of non-VET trainers can be covered by existing TAE skill sets or TAE units. And the needs of part-time or volunteer trainers working in VET can also be covered by existing TAE skill sets or TAE units. Is it a waste of time to create two or more qualification outcomes? It probably will be a waste of time (and tax payers’ money).

Do teachers delivering a VET in School program need different competencies than other trainers and assessors delivering a VET program? No, these teachers need the same competencies. We just don’t need to create two or more qualifications to replace the TAE40116 qualification.

Do trainers working for a TAFE need different competencies than trainers working for a private RTO? Do trainers working for a private RTO need different competencies than trainers working for an enterprise RTO? Do trainers working for an enterprise RTO need different competencies than a trainer working for a community-based RTO? No. No. No. The Standards for RTOs do not, nor should it, identify different credentials (competencies) for trainer and assessors who work for different types of RTOs. At one point of time, I was working as a trainer and assessor for three different types of RTOs and I did not need different competencies to perform my work.

You may also like to read other related articles:

• What credentials do trainers need?
• What tasks do trainers do?
• What AQF level is appropriate for a qualification that targets a trainer working in the VET sector?

I do not believe that replacing the TAE40116 qualification will improve the quality of training and assessment services. But we are going to have a replacement next year. Let’s hope that a TAE Upgrade will not be required for the people who are currently working as trainers and assessors in the VET sector.

What do you think?