The Australian Qualification Framework (AQF) specifies the expected outcomes for qualifications in Australia. It consists of 10 qualification levels, and has a descriptor for each level.

This article is a case study in using the AQF to determine the appropriate level for a qualification. The aim is to answer the question:

What AQF level is appropriate for a qualification that targets a trainer working in the VET sector?

The target audience are people wanting to work as a trainer in the Australian VET sector. These people have not previously worked in VET. I would narrow the choice to AQF Levels 3, 4, or 5.

For the past 23 years, the qualification for this target audience has been pitched at the AQF Level 4. We are checking if this is still the appropriate level.

Here is the descriptor for the AQF Level 3.

Here is the descriptor for the AQF Level 4.

And here is the descriptor for the AQF Level 5.

The following table makes it a little easier to compare the various levels. Highlighted in ‘red’ are some key words that we can use to explore the difference between the AQF levels.

The current qualification required to be held by trainers working in VET is at the AQF Level 4. The following questions can be used to confirm or dispute the current AQF level.

• Does a trainer need narrow or broad factual knowledge about training?
• Does a trainer need skills to complete routine and non-routine activities?
• Does a trainer need skills to solve a variety of predictable and sometimes unpredictable problems?
• Does a trainer work in stable or changing environment?
• Does a trainer have limited responsibilities?

The first four question above can help to differentiate between AQF Levels 3 and 4. The last question begins to differentiate between AQF Levels 4 and 5.

AQF Level 3 qualifications are used for skilled worker occupations. AQF Level 4 qualifications are often used for supervisory occupations. And AQF Level 5 qualifications are often used for management occupations. Does a trainer need to take the responsibility of a skilled worker, supervisor, or manager?

Trainers must supervise people when they deliver group-based training. There is a limit to their responsibilities. RTO management, not the trainer, are ultimately responsible for quality and the delivery of training and assessment services.

What are the consequences of selecting an AQF level that is lower than is required?

If the AQF level for a qualification is too low, then ‘qualified trainers’ will not have the knowledge and skills to perform their job. Delivery of poor quality training and assessment services would follow.

I think the AQF Level 3 is too low for the responsibilities of being a trainer. And the AQF Level 4 seems to be the appropriate qualification level. What do you think?

What are the consequences of selecting an AQF level that is higher than is required?

If the AQF level for a qualification is greater than what is need to perform the occupation, then this will severely limit who can get qualified. The VET system would have insufficient trainers.

I think the AQF Level 7 is far too high for the job role of trainer. And the AQF Level 5 is too high for a new trainer. Currently, there are two TAE Diplomas. One Diploma is used as the pathway to become a senior trainer. And the other Diploma is used as the pathway to become an instructional designer or resource developer.

In conclusion

Some people say AQF Level 4 is too low. Of these people, some say the AQF Level 5 is the correct level. And others say AQF Level 7. To make things really confusing, there are some people who say the AQF Level 3 is the correct level. Not everyone can be right.

But maybe the AQF level of the qualification is not the real issue. Some people find studying to attain their TAE40116 Certificate IV in Training and Assessment qualification as being too difficult, or too time consuming. This is further complicated because some people may not have the capability to attain the required competencies. Sometimes, the person may have the capability but the training strategy delivered by the RTO does not help the person to learn, or training duration is insufficient.

And some people disagree with certain units of competency being core units, such as TAEASS502 Design and develop assessment tools. ASQA decided that the TAEASS502 unit had to be a core unit. The aim was to improve the quality of assessment. Has the aim been achieved or is there progress towards achieving the aim? I assume that there will soon be a review of the TAE40116 qualification. And this would include a review of the TAE units of competency.

I welcome your comments.

For several years, some people have been trying to shift vocational education and training from being a ‘training system’ to a ‘tertiary education system’. This requires the removal of the words ‘training’ and ‘trainer’ from the lexicon.

Some people have started to drop the word ‘training’ and starting to use ‘vocational education’ instead of ‘ vocational education and training’. I believe that removing the words ‘training’ and ‘trainer’ undermines the value of VET. It is trying to make VET something that it is not. It seems to be a shift towards academic studies rather than training and developing skills for work.

The recently released Australian Skills Classification has used the occupation title of ‘Vocational Education Teacher’ instead of trainer and assessor. In a previous article, I have expressed my disappointment with the use of this occupation title. Also, the Australian Skills Classification does a poor job at describing the occupation and describing the tasks performed by trainers and assessors working in the Australian VET system.

The Australian Skills Classification has used the icon of a mortarboard (also known as a graduate cap or academic cap) to represent the occupation of trainers and assessors. For me, this icon is symbolic of university. It isn’t the best icon for representing trainers and assessors working in the VET sector.

Having earned a bachelors degree, masters degree, or a PhD is no guarantee that a person can be an effective trainer, especially an effective trainer in the Australian VET system. People need vocational skills to be a trainer, not academic achievement.

Training skills and methods can be fundamentally different to the skills and methods needed to teach. Teaching school children and teaching university students is not the same as training job seekers and workers. And being a current teacher or university lecturer does not automatically mean that the person can deliver competency-based training and assessment services without receiving the appropriate training.

Australia needs skilled and experienced butchers, bakers, dress makers, florists, hairdressers, carpenters, brick layers, roof tilers, plumbers, electricians, air-conditioning mechanics, civil construction workers, welders, machine operators, warehouse workers, office admin. workers, farm worker, gardeners, truck drivers, bus drivers, heavy equipment operators, vehicle mechanics, pet groomers, veterinary assistants, dental assistants, laboratory technicians, operation theatre technicians, chefs, cooks, kitchen assistants, aged care workers, disability support workers, etc. to be trainers. We need people with vocational skills and current work experience, and we need these people to proudly identify as being a ‘trainer’.

The mortarboard icon does not symbolise a trainer in the Australian VET workforce.

Teaching is not the same as training. And a teacher is not the same as a trainer.

A teacher will have a four year Bachelor of Education or a minimum of a three year degree, followed by a postgraduate course such as, Graduate Diploma or Master of Teaching for a particular age group, for example, early childhood, primary or secondary. Each state or territory may have slight variations to the qualification requirements to be a teacher. Basically, teachers will have attained a qualification at the AQF Level 7 or above.

Will a Vocational Education Teacher need to meet the same qualification requirements?

• If no, we are setting up two-tiers of teachers: ‘real teachers’ and ‘un-real teachers’, ‘first-class teachers’ and ‘second-class teachers’, or ‘higher educated teachers’ and ‘lower educated teachers’.
• If yes, we are stopping skilled and experienced workers from helping others to learn the skills to perform work , a trade, an occupation, or a para-profession.

A person can be a trainer without being a teacher. And the qualification requirements for a trainer doesn’t need to be at the same level as a teacher.

What level of qualification does a trainer need?

The first qualification designed for vocational trainers was introduced in 1998. It was the BSZ40198 Certificate IV in Assessment and Workplace Training. After 23 years, some people are saying that this qualification, and the subsequent qualifications that have replaced it, have been pitched at the wrong level:

• TAA40104 Certificate IV in Training and Assessment
• TAE40110 Certificate IV in Training and Assessment
• TAE40116 Certificate IV in Training and Assessment.

What AQF Level is the correct level of trainers working in the VET sector? Some people say AQF Level 4 is too low. Of these people, some say the AQF Level 5 is the correct level. And others say AQF Level 7. To make things really confusing, there are some people who say the AQF Level 3 is the correct level. Not everyone can be right. We can go to the AQF document and use it to determine the correct level. No need for discussion. No need for opinions.

Go to the Australian Qualification Framework (AQF):

• Review the criteria for the various AQF Levels
• What descriptor for knowledge and skills best fits the role of a vocational trainer?
• Does the description of autonomy, judgement, and responsibility match the role of a vocational trainer?

Please tell me what you think the correct AQF Level is.